Jump to content

Talk:Automatic summarization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section on PageRank

[edit]

Some sentences in the section on PageRank don't make sense / seem to be leftover from a previous version. E.g. However, to keep the graph small, the authors decide to rank individual unigrams in a first step, , where the authors are not referenced previously / at any point. I am not familiar enough with the subject to change these, but wanted to make a note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.101 (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: tag cruft

[edit]

I'm curious as to what needs cleaning up on this article? While it is a bit brief, it's better than a lot of Wikipedia articles that don't have the tag. KellyCoinGuy

De-tagging. -- Beland 07:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Why is there a link to Technology? What idiot thought that when I research automatic summarization I'd be wanting to read someone's lore simplistic opinion of mass misrepresentation of what technology is?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.120.28 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So don't click on it next time. Maghnus (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it wasn't really a relevant link. But I'm not sure it was worth getting so worked up about it.

Brad219 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evaluation techniques

[edit]

The context of this section is unclear. What is evaluation? What is it used for? The Transhumanist 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum entropy section needs a citation

[edit]

Parts of the section are directly from http://www.academia.edu/2814044/Automatic_summarization_of_meeting_data_A_feasibility_study, without citation or quotation. The paragraph as is does not make sense because in one sentence, the subject of the sentence is "we". This needs to be paraphrased to address the issues.72.79.221.249 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Automatic summarization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Automatic summarization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resources for the Future

[edit]

we are a planet of seven billion people, and this number is growing by about 370,000 people every day. This is putting a huge strain on the planet's natural resources. For many governments and environmental organizations, the race is on to drastically reduce our consumption of resources before they run out. water is one of our most precious resources. Our quality of life, as well as life itself, depends on the availability of clean, fresh water. It is the most widely used resource in industry, and plays a major role in energy production. Although 1 70 percent of the world is covered in water, only 2.5 percent of that is freshwater, and less than one percent of that freshwater is readily available to us. Yet we often overestimate how much water we have, and reduce it further througn pollution or inefficient use. Some 92 percent of all freshwater used annually is dedicated to growing plants 15 and raising animals for food. This means that if water runs out, our food supply might follow. In India, it is estimated that future water shortages could reduce grain harvests by 25%. In a country where the population exceeds 1.2 billion people and is growing rapidly every year, this is a huge concern. India, like many developing countries, is already struggling to provide for its population. While 20 most people in developed countries can get water at the turn of a tap, nearly four billion people elsewhere lack access to safe water, according to a 2012 United Nations' World Water Development Report. A Rain forests are another endangered resource. They once covered 14 percent of the Earth's land surface, but this has shrunk to only six percent. Every second, an 2 area of rain forest the size of a football field is destroyed-at this rate, rain forests will disappear completely in less than 40 years. All rain forests are important, but it would be a disaster if the Amazon rain forest was gone. Often called the "Lungs of the Planet," the Amazon stretches across a large portion of South America. It is so big that it produces 20 percent of the Earth's oxygen, and is home to more ∞ than half of the world's estimated ten million species of plants and animals. Governments around the world have laws to help protect and conserve these precious resources. But, no matter how many rules there are, it is ultimately individuals who must help the planet to sustain itself. Changing our lifestyle and limiting our use of natural resources is the only way to ensure a better future for 3 our children, and our children's children. 83.123.169.40 (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized the text above using an implementation of TextRank, which provided the following:
This is putting a huge strain on the planet's natural resources.
Posting training texts on Wikipedia is annoying, and a bit odd.
They once covered 14 percent of the Earth's land surface, but this has shrunk to only six percent.
...
Relevant!
Your fellow inhabit of the planet Dirt, Rethunk (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Automatic_summarization&oldid=1216641161"