Comparative evaluation of term-weighting methods for automatic summarization

Journal of Quantitative Linguistics

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 67-95

  Orǎsan, Constantin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65849373513     PISSN: 09296174     EISSN: 17445035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09296170802514187     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Baxendale, P. B. (1958). Man-made index for technical literature - an experiment. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 2(4), 354-361
2. Black, W. J., & Johnson, F. C. (1988). A practical evaluation of two rule-based automatic abstracting techniques. Expert Systems for Information Management, 1(3), 159-177
3. Brandow, R., Mitze, K., & Rau, L. F. (1995). Automatic condensation of electronic publications by sentence selection. Information Processing and Management, 31(5), 675-685
4. Buckley, C. (1985). Implementation of the SMART information retrieval system. Technical Report 85-686. Cornell University
5. Burnard, L. (1992). The text encoding initiative: A progress report. In E. Traugott & B. Kortmann (Eds), Topics in English Linguistics (pp. 97-107). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
6. Church, K. (1995). One term or two? In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 310-318), Seattle, Washington, United States
7. Donaway, R. L., Drummey, K. W., & Mather, L. A. (2000). A comparison of rankings produced by summarization evaluation measures. In Proceedings of NAACL-ANLP 2000 Workshop on Text Summarization (pp. 69-78). Seattle, Washington
8. Edmundson, H. P. (1969). New methods in automatic extracting. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 16(2), 264-285
9. Frakes, W. B., & Baeza-Yates, R. (Eds) (1992). Information Retrieval: Data Structures and Algorithms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
10. Ha, L. A., & Orǎsan, C. (2005). Concept-centred summarization: Producing glossary entries for terms using summarization methods. In Proceedings of RANLP2005 (pp. 219-225). Borovets, Bulgaria
11. Harman, D. (1991). How effective is suffixing? Journal of American Society for Information Sciences, 42(1), 7-15
12. Hovy, E. (2003). Text summarization. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (pp. 583-598). Oxford: Oxford University Press
13. Hull, D. A. (1996). Stemming algorithms: a case study for detailed evaluation. Journal of American Society for Information Sciences, 47(1), 70-84
14. Krovetz, R. (1993). Viewing morphology as an inference process. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 191-202). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
15. Kupiec, J., Pederson, J., & Chen, F. (1995). A trainable document summarizer. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM/SIGIR Annual Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 68-73). Seattle
16. Lin, C.-Y. (1998). Assembly of topic extraction modules in SUMMARIST. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Intelligent Text Summarization (pp. 44-50). Stanford, California, USA
17. Lin, C.-Y., & Hovy, E. (1997). Identifying topic by position. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (pp. 283-290). Washington, DC
18. Luhn, H. P. (1958). The automatic creation of literature abstracts. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 2(2), 159-165
19. Lyman, P., & Varian, H. R. (2003). How much information - 2003. Technical report. School of Information Management and Systems, University of California at Berkeley
20. Mani, I. (2001). Automatic Summarization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
21. Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
22. Mladenic, D., & Grobelnik, M. (1999). Feature selection for classification based on text hierarchy. In Proceedings of Conference on Automated Learning and Discovery CONALD-98 (pp. 1-6). Pittsburgh, PA
23. Nanas, N., Uren, V., & De Roeck, A. (2003). A comparative study of term weighting methods for information filtering. Technical Report kmi-03-4, KMi, Open University
24. Noreault, T., McGill, M., & Koll, M. B. (1981). A performance evaluation of similarity measures, document term-weighting schemes and representations in a boolean environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'80) (pp. 57-76). Kent, UK
25. Orǎsan, C., Pekar, V., & Hasler, L. (2004). A comparison of summarization methods based on term specificity estimation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2004) (pp. 1037-1041). Lisbon, Portugal
26. Porter, M. F. (1980). An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14(3), 130-137
27. Riloff, E. (1995). Little words can make a big difference for text classification. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 130-136). Seattle, Washington, United States
28. Robertson, S., & Sparck Jones, K. (1976). Relevance weighting of search terms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(3), 129-146
29. Rose, T. G., Stevenson, M., & Whitehead, M. (2002). The Reuters Corpus Volume 1 - from Yesterday's News to Tomorrow's Language Resources. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2002) (pp. 827-833). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
30. Salton, G., & Buckley, C. (1988). Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 24(5), 513-523
31. Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill
32. Sparck Jones, K. (1972). A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in term retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 28(1), 11-21
33. Tapanainen, P., & Järvinen, T. (1997). A non-projective dependency parser. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference of Applied Natural Language Processing (pp. 64-71). Washington DC, USA
34. Teufel, S. (1999). Argumentative Zoning: Information Extraction from Scientific Text. Unplublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh
35. Teufel, S., & Moens, M. (1997). Sentence extraction as a classification task. In Proceedings of the ACL'97/EACL'97 Workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarization (pp. 58-59). Madrid, Spain
36. Teufel, S., & Moens, M. (2002). Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Computational Linguistics, 28(4), 409-445
37. Yamamoto, M., & Church, K. W. (2001). Using suffix arrays to compute term frequency and document frequency for all substrings in a corpus. Computional Linguistics, 27(1), 1-30
38. Zechner, K. (1996). Fast generation of abstracts from general domain text corpora by extracting relevant sentences. In COLING - 96, The International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 986-989). Copenhagen, Denmark