ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Advantages of query biased summaries in information retrieval
Full text PdfPdf (1.12 MB)
Source Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval archive
Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval table of contents
Melbourne, Australia
Pages: 2 - 10  
Year of Publication: 1998
ISBN:1-58113-015-5
Authors
Anastasios Tombros  Computing Science Department, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RZ Scotland
Mark Sanderson  CIIR, Computing Science Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
Sponsors
University of Melbourne : University of Melbourne
SIGIR: ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 16,   Downloads (12 Months): 132,   Citation Count: 74
Additional Information:

references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/290941.290947
What is a DOI?

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Abracos, J., and Lopes, G.P. 1997. Statistical methods for retrieving most significant paragraphs in newspaper articles. In Proceedings of the ACL'97/EACL'97 Workshop on intelligent Scalable Text Summarisation (ISTS '97), 51-57. Madrid, Spain, July 11 1997.
 
2
 
3
4
5
 
6
Hand, T.F. 1997. A proposal for a task-based evaluation of text summarisation systems. In Proceedings of the ACL97/EACL97 Workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarisation (ISTS '97), 31-38. Madrid, Spain, July 11 1997.
 
7
Harman, D. 1996. Overview of the Filth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-5). In Proceedings of the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-5), National {nstitute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.
8
 
9
Keppel, G. 1973. Design and analysis. A researcher's handbook. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
 
10
Knaus, D., Mittendorf, E., Schauble, P., and Sheridan, P. 1995. Highlighting relevant passages for users of the interactive SPIDER retrieval system. In Proceedings of the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-4), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.
11
 
12
Luhn, H.P. 1958. The automatic creation of literature abstracts. IBM Journal of Research and Development 2(2): 159-165, April 1958.
 
13
Maizel}, R.E., Smith, J.F., and Singer, T.E.R. 1971. Abstracting scientific and technical literature: An introductot#, guide and text for scientists, abstractors and managenzent. New York: Willey-lnterscience, John Willey & Sons Inc.
 
14
Mani, I., and Bloedorn, E. 1997. Multi-document summarisation by graph search and matching. In Proceedings of AAAI-97, Providence Rhode Island.
15
 
16
 
17
Miller, S. 1984. Experimental design and statistics (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.
 
18
 
19
Porter, M.F. 1980. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program - automated librao, and information systems 14(3): 130-137.
 
20
Rush, J.E., Salvador, R., and Zamora, A. 1971. Automatic abstracting and indexing. I!. Production of indicative abstracts by application of contextual inference and syntactic coherence criteria. Jounzal of the American Society for Information Science 22(4):260-274.
 
21

CITED BY  74

Collaborative Colleagues:
Anastasios Tombros: colleagues
Mark Sanderson: colleagues