Assessing the impact of lexical chain scoring methods and sentence extraction schemes on summarization

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2945, Issue , 2004, Pages 627-635

  Doran, William ^a   Stokes, Nicola ^a   Carthy, Joe ^a   Dunnion, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXTRACTION; TEXT PROCESSING;

BASELINE SYSTEMS; COMPARATIVE STUDIES; EVALUATION SCHEME; EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES; SCORING METRICS; SENTENCE EXTRACTION; STORY LINK DETECTION; SUMMARY GENERATION;

CHAINS;

EID: 35048869834     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-24630-5_77     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Alemany, L. and Fuentes M., 2003, Integrating Cohesion and Coherence for Text Summarization. In the Proceedings of the EACL Student Workshop, 2003.
2. Allan J., 2002, Introduction to Topic Detection and Tracking, In Topic Detection and Tracking: Event-based Information Organization, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1-16.
3. Barzilay R. and Elhadad M., 1997, Using Lexical Chains for Summarisation. In ACL/EACL-97 summarisation workshop, pp 10-18, Madrid.
4. Brunn M., Chali Y., and Pinchak C. 2001, Text summarisation using lexical chains, In Workshop on Text Summarisation in conjunction with the ACM SIGIR Conference 2001, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2001.
5. DUC 2003 http://www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/duc/
6. Green, S. 1997, Automatically generating hypertext by computing semantic similarity, PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
7. Hearst, M. 1994, Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository text, In Proceedings of the 32th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9-16. Las Cruces, New Mexico: Association for Computational Linguistics.
8. Mani I., House, D., Klein, G., Hirschman, L., Obrst, L., Firmin, T., Chrzanowski, M. and Sundheim, B. 1998, The TIPSTER SUMMAC text summarisation evaluation: Final report. MITRE Technical Report MTR 98w0000138, MITRE.
9. Miller G.A., Beckwith R., Fellbaum C., Gross, D., and Miller, K. 1990, Five papers on WordNet. Technical Report, Cognitive Science Laboratory, 1990.
10. Morris, J. and Hirst, G. 1991. Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text, Computational Linguistics 17(1): 21-43.
11. Salton, G., Singhal, A., Mitra, M., and Buckley, C. 1997, Automatic text structuring and summarisation. Information Processing and Management 33(2):193-208.
12. Silber, G. and McCoy, K.. 2000, Efficient Text Summarisation Using Lexical Chains, In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IU1'2000).
13. Spark-Jones, K. 2001, Factorial Summary Evaluation, In Workshop on Text Summarisation in conjunction with the ACM SIGIR Conference 2001. New Orleans, Louisiana.
14. St. Onge, D. 1995, Detection and Correcting Malapropisms with Lexical Chains, M.Sc Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.
15. Stairmand, M. 1996, A Computational Analysis of Lexical Cohesion with Applications in Information Retrieva,. Ph.D. Dissertation, Center for Computational Linguistics, UMIST, Manchester.
16. Stokes, N., J. Carthy, A.F Smeaton, SeLeCT: A Lexical Chain-based News Story Segmentation System. To appear in the AI Communications Journal.
17. TDT Pilot Corpus, http://www.nist.gov/speech/tests/tdt/
18. van Rijsbergen, C.J., Information Retrieval, Butterworths, 1979