Search (115 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Abstracting"
  1. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Kognitive Modellierung des Abstracting (1991) 0.08 
    0.079621606 = product of:
  0.199054 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=23,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
    0.19088061 = weight(_text_:91 in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19088061 = score(doc=23,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.7387768 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Series
    DGD-Schrift (DOK-3); 1/91
    Type
    a
  2. Nomoto, T.: Discriminative sentence compression with conditional random fields (2007) 0.07 
    0.06867371 = product of:
  0.11445618 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=945,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
    0.095440306 = weight(_text_:91 in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095440306 = score(doc=945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.3693884 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=945,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The paper focuses on a particular approach to automatic sentence compression which makes use of a discriminative sequence classifier known as Conditional Random Fields (CRF). We devise several features for CRF that allow it to incorporate information on nonlinear relations among words. Along with that, we address the issue of data paucity by collecting data from RSS feeds available on the Internet, and turning them into training data for use with CRF, drawing on techniques from biology and information retrieval. We also discuss a recursive application of CRF on the syntactic structure of a sentence as a way of improving the readability of the compression it generates. Experiments found that our approach works reasonably well compared to the state-of-the-art system [Knight, K., & Marcu, D. (2002). Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probabilistic approach to sentence compression. Artificial Intelligence 139, 91-107.].
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1571-1587
    Type
    a
  3. Goh, A.; Hui, S.C.: TES: a text extraction system (1996) 0.04 
    0.036372114 = product of:
  0.09093028 = sum of:
    0.01541188 = weight(_text_:a in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01541188 = score(doc=6599,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 6599, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6599)
    0.0755184 = sum of:
      0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025260232 = score(doc=6599,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6599, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6599)
      0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050258167 = score(doc=6599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6599, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6599)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    With the onset of the information explosion arising from digital libraries and access to a wealth of information through the Internet, the need to efficiently determine the relevance of a document becomes even more urgent. Describes a text extraction system (TES), which retrieves a set of sentences from a document to form an indicative abstract. Such an automated process enables information to be filtered more quickly. Discusses the combination of various text extraction techniques. Compares results with manually produced abstracts
    Date
    26. 2.1997 10:22:43
    Source
    Microcomputers for information management. 13(1996) no.1, S.41-55
    Type
    a
  4. Jones, P.A.; Bradbeer, P.V.G.: Discovery of optimal weights in a concept selection system (1996) 0.03 
    0.031607077 = product of:
  0.07901769 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=6974,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.06811985 = sum of:
      0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017861681 = score(doc=6974,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
      0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050258167 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Describes the application of weighting strategies to model uncertainties and probabilities in automatic abstracting systems, particularly in the concept selection phase. The weights were originally assigned in an ad hoc manner and were then refined by manual analysis of the results. The new method attempts to derive a more systematic methods and performs this using a genetic algorithm
    Source
    Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
    Type
    a
  5. Vanderwende, L.; Suzuki, H.; Brockett, J.M.; Nenkova, A.: Beyond SumBasic : task-focused summarization with sentence simplification and lexical expansion (2007) 0.02 
    0.024091203 = product of:
  0.060228005 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=948,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
    0.051089883 = sum of:
      0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013396261 = score(doc=948,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In recent years, there has been increased interest in topic-focused multi-document summarization. In this task, automatic summaries are produced in response to a specific information request, or topic, stated by the user. The system we have designed to accomplish this task comprises four main components: a generic extractive summarization system, a topic-focusing component, sentence simplification, and lexical expansion of topic words. This paper details each of these components, together with experiments designed to quantify their individual contributions. We include an analysis of our results on two large datasets commonly used to evaluate task-focused summarization, the DUC2005 and DUC2006 datasets, using automatic metrics. Additionally, we include an analysis of our results on the DUC2006 task according to human evaluation metrics. In the human evaluation of system summaries compared to human summaries, i.e., the Pyramid method, our system ranked first out of 22 systems in terms of overall mean Pyramid score; and in the human evaluation of summary responsiveness to the topic, our system ranked third out of 35 systems.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1606-1618
    Type
    a
  6. Jiang, Y.; Meng, R.; Huang, Y.; Lu, W.; Liu, J.: Generating keyphrases for readers : a controllable keyphrase generation framework (2023) 0.02 
    0.02192564 = product of:
  0.054814097 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=1012,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.047198996 = sum of:
      0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015787644 = score(doc=1012,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    With the wide application of keyphrases in many Information Retrieval (IR) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, automatic keyphrase prediction has been emerging. However, these statistically important phrases are contributing increasingly less to the related tasks because the end-to-end learning mechanism enables models to learn the important semantic information of the text directly. Similarly, keyphrases are of little help for readers to quickly grasp the paper's main idea because the relationship between the keyphrase and the paper is not explicit to readers. Therefore, we propose to generate keyphrases with specific functions for readers to bridge the semantic gap between them and the information producers, and verify the effectiveness of the keyphrase function for assisting users' comprehension with a user experiment. A controllable keyphrase generation framework (the CKPG) that uses the keyphrase function as a control code to generate categorized keyphrases is proposed and implemented based on Transformer, BART, and T5, respectively. For the Computer Science domain, the Macro-avgs of , , and on the Paper with Code dataset are up to 0.680, 0.535, and 0.558, respectively. Our experimental results indicate the effectiveness of the CKPG models.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:55:20
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.759-774
    Type
    a
  7. Oh, H.; Nam, S.; Zhu, Y.: Structured abstract summarization of scientific articles : summarization using full-text section information (2023) 0.02 
    0.021637667 = product of:
  0.054094166 = sum of:
    0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009010308 = score(doc=889,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
    0.045083858 = sum of:
      0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013672504 = score(doc=889,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The automatic summarization of scientific articles differs from other text genres because of the structured format and longer text length. Previous approaches have focused on tackling the lengthy nature of scientific articles, aiming to improve the computational efficiency of summarizing long text using a flat, unstructured abstract. However, the structured format of scientific articles and characteristics of each section have not been fully explored, despite their importance. The lack of a sufficient investigation and discussion of various characteristics for each section and their influence on summarization results has hindered the practical use of automatic summarization for scientific articles. To provide a balanced abstract proportionally emphasizing each section of a scientific article, the community introduced the structured abstract, an abstract with distinct, labeled sections. Using this information, in this study, we aim to understand tasks ranging from data preparation to model evaluation from diverse viewpoints. Specifically, we provide a preprocessed large-scale dataset and propose a summarization method applying the introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRaD) format reflecting the characteristics of each section. We also discuss the objective benchmarks and perspectives of state-of-the-art algorithms and present the challenges and research directions in this area.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:57:12
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.234-248
    Type
    a
  8. Wu, Y.-f.B.; Li, Q.; Bot, R.S.; Chen, X.: Finding nuggets in documents : a machine learning approach (2006) 0.02 
    0.020029822 = product of:
  0.050074555 = sum of:
    0.010769378 = weight(_text_:a in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010769378 = score(doc=5290,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Document keyphrases provide a concise summary of a document's content, offering semantic metadata summarizing a document. They can be used in many applications related to knowledge management and text mining, such as automatic text summarization, development of search engines, document clustering, document classification, thesaurus construction, and browsing interfaces. Because only a small portion of documents have keyphrases assigned by authors, and it is time-consuming and costly to manually assign keyphrases to documents, it is necessary to develop an algorithm to automatically generate keyphrases for documents. This paper describes a Keyphrase Identification Program (KIP), which extracts document keyphrases by using prior positive samples of human identified phrases to assign weights to the candidate keyphrases. The logic of our algorithm is: The more keywords a candidate keyphrase contains and the more significant these keywords are, the more likely this candidate phrase is a keyphrase. KIP's learning function can enrich the glossary database by automatically adding new identified keyphrases to the database. KIP's personalization feature will let the user build a glossary database specifically suitable for the area of his/her interest. The evaluation results show that KIP's performance is better than the systems we compared to and that the learning function is effective.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 17:25:48
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.740-752
    Type
    a
  9. Kim, H.H.; Kim, Y.H.: Generic speech summarization of transcribed lecture videos : using tags and their semantic relations (2016) 0.02 
    0.018768111 = product of:
  0.046920277 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=2640,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    We propose a tag-based framework that simulates human abstractors' ability to select significant sentences based on key concepts in a sentence as well as the semantic relations between key concepts to create generic summaries of transcribed lecture videos. The proposed extractive summarization method uses tags (viewer- and author-assigned terms) as key concepts. Our method employs Flickr tag clusters and WordNet synonyms to expand tags and detect the semantic relations between tags. This method helps select sentences that have a greater number of semantically related key concepts. To investigate the effectiveness and uniqueness of the proposed method, we compare it with an existing technique, latent semantic analysis (LSA), using intrinsic and extrinsic evaluations. The results of intrinsic evaluation show that the tag-based method is as or more effective than the LSA method. We also observe that in the extrinsic evaluation, the grand mean accuracy score of the tag-based method is higher than that of the LSA method, with a statistically significant difference. Elaborating on our results, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings for speech video summarization and retrieval.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 12:29:41
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.366-379
    Type
    a
  10. Robin, J.; McKeown, K.: Empirically designing and evaluating a new revision-based model for summary generation (1996) 0.02 
    0.015390465 = product of:
  0.03847616 = sum of:
    0.013347079 = weight(_text_:a in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013347079 = score(doc=6751,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Presents a system for summarizing quantitative data in natural language, focusing on the use of a corpus of basketball game summaries, drawn from online news services, to empirically shape the system design and to evaluate the approach. Initial corpus analysis revealed characteristics of textual summaries that challenge the capabilities of current language generation systems. A revision based corpus analysis was used to identify and encode the revision rules of the system. Presents a quantitative evaluation, using several test corpora, to measure the robustness of the new revision based model
    Date
    6. 3.1997 16:22:15
    Type
    a
  11. Bateman, J.; Teich, E.: Selective information presentation in an integrated publication system : an application of genre-driven text generation (1995) 0.01 
    0.010065834 = product of:
  0.025164586 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 2928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=2928,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2928, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2928)
    0.015628971 = product of:
      0.031257942 = sum of:
        0.031257942 = weight(_text_:information in 2928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031257942 = score(doc=2928,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 2928, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.753-767
    Type
    a
  12. Pinto, M.: Engineering the production of meta-information : the abstracting concern (2003) 0.01 
    0.010065834 = product of:
  0.025164586 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
    0.015628971 = product of:
      0.031257942 = sum of:
        0.031257942 = weight(_text_:information in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031257942 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 29(2003) no.5, S.405-418
    Type
    a
  13. Craven, T.C.: Presentation of repeated phrases in a computer-assisted abstracting tool kit (2001) 0.01 
    0.009814699 = product of:
  0.024536747 = sum of:
    0.013485395 = weight(_text_:a in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013485395 = score(doc=3667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
    0.011051352 = product of:
      0.022102704 = sum of:
        0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022102704 = score(doc=3667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.2, S.221-230
    Type
    a
  14. Díaz, A.; Gervás, P.: User-model based personalized summarization (2007) 0.01 
    0.009451722 = product of:
  0.023629304 = sum of:
    0.014156716 = weight(_text_:a in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014156716 = score(doc=952,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=952,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The potential of summary personalization is high, because a summary that would be useless to decide the relevance of a document if summarized in a generic manner, may be useful if the right sentences are selected that match the user interest. In this paper we defend the use of a personalized summarization facility to maximize the density of relevance of selections sent by a personalized information system to a given user. The personalization is applied to the digital newspaper domain and it used a user-model that stores long and short term interests using four reference systems: sections, categories, keywords and feedback terms. On the other side, it is crucial to measure how much information is lost during the summarization process, and how this information loss may affect the ability of the user to judge the relevance of a given document. The results obtained in two personalization systems show that personalized summaries perform better than generic and generic-personalized summaries in terms of identifying documents that satisfy user preferences. We also considered a user-centred direct evaluation that showed a high level of user satisfaction with the summaries.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1715-1734
    Type
    a
  15. Paice, C.D.: Automatic abstracting (1994) 0.01 
    0.009411185 = product of:
  0.023527961 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
    0.012630116 = product of:
      0.025260232 = sum of:
        0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025260232 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.53, [=Suppl.16]
    Type
    a
  16. Steinberger, J.; Poesio, M.; Kabadjov, M.A.; Jezek, K.: Two uses of anaphora resolution in summarization (2007) 0.01 
    0.009140301 = product of:
  0.022850752 = sum of:
    0.012260076 = weight(_text_:a in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012260076 = score(doc=949,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
    0.010590675 = product of:
      0.02118135 = sum of:
        0.02118135 = weight(_text_:information in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02118135 = score(doc=949,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    We propose a new method for using anaphoric information in Latent Semantic Analysis (lsa), and discuss its application to develop an lsa-based summarizer which achieves a significantly better performance than a system not using anaphoric information, and a better performance by the rouge measure than all but one of the single-document summarizers participating in DUC-2002. Anaphoric information is automatically extracted using a new release of our own anaphora resolution system, guitar, which incorporates proper noun resolution. Our summarizer also includes a new approach for automatically identifying the dimensionality reduction of a document on the basis of the desired summarization percentage. Anaphoric information is also used to check the coherence of the summary produced by our summarizer, by a reference checker module which identifies anaphoric resolution errors caused by sentence extraction.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1663-1680
    Type
    a
  17. Maybury, M.T.: Generating summaries from event data (1995) 0.01 
    0.00896555 = product of:
  0.022413874 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=2349,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
    0.011601503 = product of:
      0.023203006 = sum of:
        0.023203006 = weight(_text_:information in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023203006 = score(doc=2349,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Summarization entails analysis of source material, selection of key information, condensation of this, and generation of a compct summary form. While there habe been many investigations into the automatic summarization of text, relatively little attention has been given to the summarization of information from structured information sources such as data of knowledge bases, despite this being a desirable capability for a number of application areas including report generation from databases (e.g. weather, financial, medical) and simulation (e.g. military, manufacturing, aconomic). After a brief introduction indicating the main elements of summarization and referring to some illustrative approaches to it, considers pecific issues in the generation of text summaries of event data, describes a system, SumGen, which selects key information from an event database by reasoning about event frequencies, frequencies of relations between events, and domain specific importance measures. Describes how Sum Gen then aggregates similar information and plans a summary presentations tailored to stereotypical users
    Source
    Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.735-751
    Type
    a
  18. Sweeney, S.; Crestani, F.; Losada, D.E.: 'Show me more' : incremental length summarisation using novelty detection (2008) 0.01 
    0.008586073 = product of:
  0.021465182 = sum of:
    0.011797264 = weight(_text_:a in 2054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011797264 = score(doc=2054,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 2054, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2054)
    0.009667919 = product of:
      0.019335838 = sum of:
        0.019335838 = weight(_text_:information in 2054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019335838 = score(doc=2054,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 2054, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The paper presents a study investigating the effects of incorporating novelty detection in automatic text summarisation. Condensing a textual document, automatic text summarisation can reduce the need to refer to the source document. It also offers a means to deliver device-friendly content when accessing information in non-traditional environments. An effective method of summarisation could be to produce a summary that includes only novel information. However, a consequence of focusing exclusively on novel parts may result in a loss of context, which may have an impact on the correct interpretation of the summary, with respect to the source document. In this study we compare two strategies to produce summaries that incorporate novelty in different ways: a constant length summary, which contains only novel sentences, and an incremental summary, containing additional sentences that provide context. The aim is to establish whether a summary that contains only novel sentences provides sufficient basis to determine relevance of a document, or if indeed we need to include additional sentences to provide context. Findings from the study seem to suggest that there is only a minimal difference in performance for the tasks we set our users and that the presence of contextual information is not so important. However, for the case of mobile information access, a summary that contains only novel information does offer benefits, given bandwidth constraints.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.663-686
    Type
    a
  19. Liu, J.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, L.: ¬A hybrid method for abstracting newspaper articles (1999) 0.01 
    0.0084460005 = product of:
  0.021115001 = sum of:
    0.012184162 = weight(_text_:a in 4059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012184162 = score(doc=4059,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 4059, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4059)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 4059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=4059,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4059, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4059)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper introduces a hybrid method for abstracting Chinese text. It integrates the statistical approach with language understanding. Some linguistics heuristics and segmentation are also incorporated into the abstracting process. The prototype system is of a multipurpose type catering for various users with different reqirements. Initial responses show that the proposed method contributes much to the flexibility and accuracy of the automatic Chinese abstracting system. In practice, the present work provides a path to developing an intelligent Chinese system for automating the information
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.13, S.1234-1245
    Type
    a
  20. Johnson, F.C.: ¬A critical view of system-centered to user-centered evaluation of automatic abstracting research (1999) 0.01 
    0.008412599 = product of:
  0.021031497 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 2994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=2994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2994)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 2994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=2994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    New review of information and library research. 5(1999), S.49-63
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 95
  • d 18
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 109
  • el 2
  • m 2
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects