Video Summarization Rhetorical Structure Sentence Location Text Retrieval Conference Program Advisory Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baldwin, B., Donaway, R., Hovy, E., Liddy, E., Mani, I., Marcu, D., McKeown, K., Mittal, V., Moens, M., Radev, D., McKeown, K., Mittal, V., Moens, M., Radev, D., Sparck Jones, K., Sundheim, B., Teufel, S., Weischedel, R., and White, M. 2000. An evaluation roadmap for summarization research. Scholar
  2. DeJong, G. F. 1979. Skimming stories in real time: An experiment in integrated understanding. Ph.D. Thesis. Yale University.Google Scholar
  3. Gladwin, P., Pulman, S. and Sparck Jones, K. 1991. Shallow processing and automatic summarising: a first study. Technical Report No. 223, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory.Google Scholar
  4. Harman, D. 2003. The importance of focused evaluations: A Case Study of TREC and DUC. Invited paper in the Proceeedings of the NTCIR Workshop on Chinese and Japanese Text Retrieval and Text Summarization.Google Scholar
  5. Mani, I. and Maybury, M. (eds.) 1999. Advances in Automatic Text Summarization. MIT Press. ( Scholar
  6. Maybury, M. in press. Universal Multimedia Information Access. In Carbonelle, N. (ed.) UAIS Special Issue on Multimodality in Universal Computer Access.Google Scholar
  7. Sakai, T. and Spärck Jones, K. 2001. Generic Summaries for Indexing in Information Retrieval. In Croft, W. B., Harper, D. J., Kraft, D. H. and Zobel, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2001), September 9–13, 2001, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 190–198.Google Scholar
  8. Spärck Jones, K. 1964. Synonymy and Semantic Classification. PhD thesis. University of Cambridge; with additional chapter, “Twenty years later: a review”, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. Spärck Jones, K. and van Rijsbergen, C. 1975. Report on the need for and provision of an ideal information retrieval test collection. British Library Research and Development Report 5266, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Spärck Jones, K. 1993a. Discourse modeling for automatic summarization. Computer Laboratory TR 290, University of Cambridge. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, New Series, Vol 1, 1995, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 201–227.Google Scholar
  11. Spärck Jones, K. 1993b. What might be in a summary? In Knorz, G., Krause, J. and Womser-Hacker, C. (eds.). Information Retrieval 93: Von der Modellierung zur Anwendung. Konstanz: Universitätverlag Kongstanz, 9–26. Scholar
  12. Spärck Jones, K. and Endres-Niggemeyer, B. (eds.) 1995. International Journal of Information Processing and Management: Special Issue on Text Summarization. 31(5).Google Scholar
  13. Spärck Jones, K., 1997. Summarizing: Where are we now? Where should we go? In Mani, I., and Maybury, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACL/EACL’97 Workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarization, Madrid, Spain, 11 July 1997.Google Scholar
  14. Spärck Jones, K. 1999. Automatic summarising: factors and directions. In Mani, I. and Maybury, M. (eds.) Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–12. ( Scholar
  15. Spärck Jones, K. 2001. Factorial summary evaluation. Workshop on Text Summarization. ACM SIGIR 2001 conference. ( Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark T. Maybury

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations