Search (104 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Abstracting"
  1. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Summarizing information (1998) 0.06 
    0.064311534 = product of:
  0.1929346 = sum of:
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=688,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
    0.18280637 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18280637 = score(doc=688,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.71301806 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Summarizing is the process of reducing the large information size of something like a novel or a scientific paper to a short summary or abstract comprising only the most essential points. Summarizing is frequent in everyday communication, but it is also a professional skill for journalists and others. Automated summarizing functions are urgently needed by Internet users who wish to avoid being overwhelmed by information. This book presents the state of the art and surveys related research; it deals with everyday and professional summarizing as well as computerized approaches. The author focuses in detail on the cognitive pro-cess involved in summarizing and supports this with a multimedia simulation systems on the accompanying CD-ROM
    RSWK
    Zusammenfassung / Referieren <Dokumentation> / Indexierung <Inhaltserschliessung> / Kognitiver Prozess (2314) (3214) (4231)
    Zusammenfassung / Referieren <Dokumentation> / Indexierung <Inhaltserschliessung> / Computersimulation / CD-ROM (23145) (32145) (41235)
    Subject
    Zusammenfassung / Referieren <Dokumentation> / Indexierung <Inhaltserschliessung> / Kognitiver Prozess (2314) (3214) (4231)
    Zusammenfassung / Referieren <Dokumentation> / Indexierung <Inhaltserschliessung> / Computersimulation / CD-ROM (23145) (32145) (41235)
  2. Johnson, F.C.; Paice, C.D.; Black, W.J.; Neal, A.P.: ¬The application of linguistic processing to automatic abstract generation (1993) 0.05 
    0.047177844 = product of:
  0.09435569 = sum of:
    0.0137827825 = weight(_text_:in in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0137827825 = score(doc=2290,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.056475073 = weight(_text_:u in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056475073 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.02409783 = product of:
      0.04819566 = sum of:
        0.04819566 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04819566 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Footnote
    Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.538-552.
  3. Salton, G.; Allan, J.; Buckley, C.; Singhal, A.: Automatic analysis, theme generation, and summarization of machine readable texts (1994) 0.05 
    0.047177844 = product of:
  0.09435569 = sum of:
    0.0137827825 = weight(_text_:in in 1949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0137827825 = score(doc=1949,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1949, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1949)
    0.056475073 = weight(_text_:u in 1949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056475073 = score(doc=1949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 1949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1949)
    0.02409783 = product of:
      0.04819566 = sum of:
        0.04819566 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04819566 = score(doc=1949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Footnote
    Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.478-483.
  4. Marsh, E.: ¬A production rule system for message summarisation (1984) 0.05 
    0.047177844 = product of:
  0.09435569 = sum of:
    0.0137827825 = weight(_text_:in in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0137827825 = score(doc=1956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
    0.056475073 = weight(_text_:u in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056475073 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
    0.02409783 = product of:
      0.04819566 = sum of:
        0.04819566 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04819566 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Footnote
    Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.534-537.
  5. Jones, P.A.; Bradbeer, P.V.G.: Discovery of optimal weights in a concept selection system (1996) 0.04 
    0.040597785 = product of:
  0.12179335 = sum of:
    0.015593438 = weight(_text_:in in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015593438 = score(doc=6974,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
    0.10619991 = sum of:
      0.054527164 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054527164 = score(doc=6974,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = queryNorm
          0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 6974, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6974)
      0.05167275 = weight(_text_:22 in 6974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05167275 = score(doc=6974,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  6. Hahn, U.: Automatisches Abstracting (2013) 0.03 
    0.029871237 = product of:
  0.089613706 = sum of:
    0.0097459 = weight(_text_:in in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0097459 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
    0.07986781 = weight(_text_:u in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07986781 = score(doc=721,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.5116319 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried
  7. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬An empirical process model of abstracting (1992) 0.03 
    0.02648839 = product of:
  0.079465166 = sum of:
    0.011695079 = weight(_text_:in in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011695079 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
    0.067770086 = weight(_text_:u in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067770086 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    Mensch und Maschine: Informationelle Schnittstellen der Kommunikation. Proc. des 3. Int. Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI'92), 5.-7.11.1992 in Saarbrücken. Hrsg.: H.H. Zimmermann, H.-D. Luckhardt u. A. Schulz
  8. Advances in automatic text summarization (1999) 0.02 
    0.023419287 = product of:
  0.07025786 = sum of:
    0.0137827825 = weight(_text_:in in 6191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0137827825 = score(doc=6191,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 6191, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6191)
    0.056475073 = weight(_text_:u in 6191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056475073 = score(doc=6191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 6191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6191)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Editor
    Mani, I. u. M.T. Maybury
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 27(2000) no.3, S.178-180 (H. Saggion)
  9. Hahn, U.: ¬Die Verdichtung textuellen Wissens zu Information : vom Wandel methodischer Paradigmen beim automatischen Abstracting (2004) 0.02 
    0.022073656 = product of:
  0.06622097 = sum of:
    0.0097459 = weight(_text_:in in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0097459 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
    0.056475073 = weight(_text_:u in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056475073 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    Wissen in Aktion: Der Primat der Pragmatik als Motto der Konstanzer Informationswissenschaft. Festschrift für Rainer Kuhlen. Hrsg. R. Hammwöhner, u.a
  10. Kim, H.H.; Kim, Y.H.: Generic speech summarization of transcribed lecture videos : using tags and their semantic relations (2016) 0.02 
    0.021094896 = product of:
  0.06328469 = sum of:
    0.0068913912 = weight(_text_:in in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068913912 = score(doc=2640,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
    0.0563933 = sum of:
      0.02409783 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02409783 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
      0.03229547 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03229547 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  11. Jiang, Y.; Meng, R.; Huang, Y.; Lu, W.; Liu, J.: Generating keyphrases for readers : a controllable keyphrase generation framework (2023) 0.02 
    0.020422084 = product of:
  0.06126625 = sum of:
    0.00487295 = weight(_text_:in in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00487295 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.0563933 = sum of:
      0.02409783 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02409783 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
      0.03229547 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03229547 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  12. Automatic summarizing : introduction (1995) 0.02 
    0.016837614 = product of:
  0.10102568 = sum of:
    0.10102568 = weight(_text_:u in 626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10102568 = score(doc=626,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.6471689 = fieldWeight in 626, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=626)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Content
    Enthält u.a. Beiträge von: J. BATEMAN u. E. TEICH; R. BRANDOW, K. MITZE u. L.F. RAU; B. ENDRES-NIGGEMEYER, E. MAIER u. A. SIGEL; M.T. MAYBURY; K. McKEOWN, J. ROBIN u. K. KUKICH; A. ROTHKEGEL
    Editor
    Sparck Jones, K. u. B. Endres-Niggemeyer
  13. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Kognitive Modellierung des Abstracting (1991) 0.02 
    0.015973562 = product of:
  0.09584137 = sum of:
    0.09584137 = weight(_text_:u in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09584137 = score(doc=23,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.6139583 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Deutscher Dokumentartag 1990. 1. Deutsch-deutscher Dokumentartag, 25.-27.9.90, Fulda. Proceedings. Hrsg. W. Neubauer u. U. Schneider-Briehn
  14. Lam, W.; Chan, K.; Radev, D.; Saggion, H.; Teufel, S.: Context-based generic cross-lingual retrieval of documents and automated summaries (2005) 0.01 
    0.013015211 = product of:
  0.039045632 = sum of:
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=1965,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
    0.028917395 = product of:
      0.05783479 = sum of:
        0.05783479 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05783479 = score(doc=1965,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    We develop a context-based generic cross-lingual retrieval model that can deal with different language pairs. Our model considers contexts in the query translation process. Contexts in the query as weIl as in the documents based an co-occurrence statistics from different granularity of passages are exploited. We also investigate cross-lingual retrieval of automatic generic summaries. We have implemented our model for two different cross-lingual settings, namely, retrieving Chinese documents from English queries as weIl as retrieving English documents from Chinese queries. Extensive experiments have been conducted an a large-scale parallel corpus enabling studies an retrieval performance for two different cross-lingual settings of full-length documents as weIl as automated summaries.
  15. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Jauris-Heipke, S.; Pinsky, S.M.; Ulbricht, U.: Wissen gewinnen durch Wissen : Ontologiebasierte Informationsextraktion (2006) 0.01 
    0.012661146 = product of:
  0.037983436 = sum of:
    0.0097459 = weight(_text_:in in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0097459 = score(doc=6016,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 6016, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6016)
    0.028237537 = weight(_text_:u in 6016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028237537 = score(doc=6016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 6016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6016)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Die ontologiebasierte Informationsextraktion, über die hier berichtet wird, ist Teil eines Systems zum automatischen Zusammenfassen, das sich am Vorgehen kompetenter Menschen orientiert. Dahinter steht die Annahme, dass Menschen die Ergebnisse eines Systems leichter übernehmen können, wenn sie mit Verfahren erarbeitet worden sind, die sie selbst auch benutzen. Das erste Anwendungsgebiet ist Knochenmarktransplantation (KMT). Im Kern des Systems Summit-BMT (Summarize It in Bone Marrow Transplantation) steht eine Ontologie des Fachgebietes. Sie ist als MySQL-Datenbank realisiert und versorgt menschliche Benutzer und Systemkomponenten mit Wissen. Summit-BMT unterstützt die Frageformulierung mit einem empirisch fundierten Szenario-Interface. Die Retrievalergebnisse werden durch ein Textpassagenretrieval vorselektiert und dann kognitiv fundierten Agenten unterbreitet, die unter Einsatz ihrer Wissensbasis / Ontologie genauer prüfen, ob die Propositionen aus der Benutzerfrage getroffen werden. Die relevanten Textclips aus dem Duelldokument werden in das Szenarioformular eingetragen und mit einem Link zu ihrem Vorkommen im Original präsentiert. In diesem Artikel stehen die Ontologie und ihr Gebrauch zur wissensbasierten Informationsextraktion im Mittelpunkt. Die Ontologiedatenbank hält unterschiedliche Wissenstypen so bereit, dass sie leicht kombiniert werden können: Konzepte, Propositionen und ihre syntaktisch-semantischen Schemata, Unifikatoren, Paraphrasen und Definitionen von Frage-Szenarios. Auf sie stützen sich die Systemagenten, welche von Menschen adaptierte Zusammenfassungsstrategien ausführen. Mängel in anderen Verarbeitungsschritten führen zu Verlusten, aber die eigentliche Qualität der Ergebnisse steht und fällt mit der Qualität der Ontologie. Erste Tests der Extraktionsleistung fallen verblüffend positiv aus.
  16. Vanderwende, L.; Suzuki, H.; Brockett, J.M.; Nenkova, A.: Beyond SumBasic : task-focused summarization with sentence simplification and lexical expansion (2007) 0.01 
    0.011616139 = product of:
  0.034848414 = sum of:
    0.015471136 = weight(_text_:in in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015471136 = score(doc=948,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
    0.01937728 = product of:
      0.03875456 = sum of:
        0.03875456 = weight(_text_:22 in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03875456 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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.
  17. Robin, J.; McKeown, K.: Empirically designing and evaluating a new revision-based model for summary generation (1996) 0.01 
    0.011211032 = product of:
  0.033633094 = sum of:
    0.007796719 = weight(_text_:in in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007796719 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 6751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6751)
    0.025836375 = product of:
      0.05167275 = sum of:
        0.05167275 = weight(_text_:22 in 6751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05167275 = score(doc=6751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  18. Kuhlen, R.: Informationsaufbereitung III : Referieren (Abstracts - Abstracting - Grundlagen) (2004) 0.01 
    0.010713007 = product of:
  0.032139022 = sum of:
    0.009548993 = weight(_text_:in in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009548993 = score(doc=2917,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.14725187 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
    0.022590028 = weight(_text_:u in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022590028 = score(doc=2917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.14471136 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Was ein Abstract (im Folgenden synonym mit Referat oder Kurzreferat gebraucht) ist, legt das American National Standards Institute in einer Weise fest, die sicherlich von den meisten Fachleuten akzeptiert werden kann: "An abstract is defined as an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document"; fast genauso die deutsche Norm DIN 1426: "Das Kurzreferat gibt kurz und klar den Inhalt des Dokuments wieder." Abstracts gehören zum wissenschaftlichen Alltag. Weitgehend allen Publikationen, zumindest in den naturwissenschaftlichen, technischen, informationsbezogenen oder medizinischen Bereichen, gehen Abstracts voran, "prefe-rably prepared by its author(s) for publication with it". Es gibt wohl keinen Wissenschaftler, der nicht irgendwann einmal ein Abstract geschrieben hätte. Gehört das Erstellen von Abstracts dann überhaupt zur dokumentarischen bzw informationswissenschaftlichen Methodenlehre, wenn es jeder kann? Was macht den informationellen Mehrwert aus, der durch Expertenreferate gegenüber Laienreferaten erzeugt wird? Dies ist nicht so leicht zu beantworten, zumal geeignete Bewertungsverfahren fehlen, die Qualität von Abstracts vergleichend "objektiv" zu messen. Abstracts werden in erheblichem Umfang von Informationsspezialisten erstellt, oft unter der Annahme, dass Autoren selber dafür weniger geeignet sind. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, was wir über Abstracts und Abstracting wissen. Ein besonders gelungenes Abstract ist zuweilen klarer als der Ursprungstext selber, darf aber nicht mehr Information als dieser enthalten: "Good abstracts are highly structured, concise, and coherent, and are the result of a thorough analysis of the content of the abstracted materials. Abstracts may be more readable than the basis documents, but because of size constraints they rarely equal and never surpass the information content of the basic document". Dies ist verständlich, denn ein "Abstract" ist zunächst nichts anderes als ein Ergebnis des Vorgangs einer Abstraktion. Ohne uns zu sehr in die philosophischen Hintergründe der Abstraktion zu verlieren, besteht diese doch "in der Vernachlässigung von bestimmten Vorstellungsbzw. Begriffsinhalten, von welchen zugunsten anderer Teilinhalte abgesehen, abstrahiert' wird. Sie ist stets verbunden mit einer Fixierung von (interessierenden) Merkmalen durch die aktive Aufmerksamkeit, die unter einem bestimmten pragmatischen Gesichtspunkt als wesentlich' für einen vorgestellten bzw für einen unter einen Begriff fallenden Gegenstand (oder eine Mehrheit von Gegenständen) betrachtet werden". Abstracts reduzieren weniger Begriffsinhalte, sondern Texte bezüglich ihres proportionalen Gehaltes. Borko/ Bernier haben dies sogar quantifiziert; sie schätzen den Reduktionsfaktor auf 1:10 bis 1:12
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis
  19. Moens, M.-F.: Summarizing court decisions (2007) 0.01 
    0.010170913 = product of:
  0.030512739 = sum of:
    0.0136442585 = weight(_text_:in in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0136442585 = score(doc=954,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
    0.016868481 = product of:
      0.033736963 = sum of:
        0.033736963 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033736963 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In the field of law there is an absolute need for summarizing the texts of court decisions in order to make the content of the cases easily accessible for legal professionals. During the SALOMON and MOSAIC projects we investigated the summarization and retrieval of legal cases. This article presents some of the main findings while integrating the research results of experiments on legal document summarization by other research groups. In addition, we propose novel avenues of research for automatic text summarization, which we currently exploit when summarizing court decisions in the ACILA project. Techniques for automated concept learning and argument recognition are here the most challenging.
  20. Atanassova, I.; Bertin, M.; Larivière, V.: On the composition of scientific abstracts (2016) 0.01 
    0.008889254 = product of:
  0.026667763 = sum of:
    0.014618848 = weight(_text_:in in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014618848 = score(doc=3028,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
    0.012048915 = product of:
      0.02409783 = sum of:
        0.02409783 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02409783 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Scientific abstracts reproduce only part of the information and the complexity of argumentation in a scientific article. The purpose of this paper provides a first analysis of the similarity between the text of scientific abstracts and the body of articles, using sentences as the basic textual unit. It contributes to the understanding of the structure of abstracts. Design/methodology/approach - Using sentence-based similarity metrics, the authors quantify the phenomenon of text re-use in abstracts and examine the positions of the sentences that are similar to sentences in abstracts in the introduction, methods, results and discussion structure, using a corpus of over 85,000 research articles published in the seven Public Library of Science journals. Findings - The authors provide evidence that 84 percent of abstract have at least one sentence in common with the body of the paper. Studying the distributions of sentences in the body of the articles that are re-used in abstracts, the authors show that there exists a strong relation between the rhetorical structure of articles and the zones that authors re-use when writing abstracts, with sentences mainly coming from the beginning of the introduction and the end of the conclusion. Originality/value - Scientific abstracts contain what is considered by the author(s) as information that best describe documents' content. This is a first study that examines the relation between the contents of abstracts and the rhetorical structure of scientific articles. The work might provide new insight for improving automatic abstracting tools as well as information retrieval approaches, in which text organization and structure are important features.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 89
  • d 14
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 97
  • m 4
  • el 3
  • r 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects