The result of my research work is an offline abstract preparation software. The given text composes the units of the analysis process from which the significant words are selected as well. The identification of roots is performed by the Helyeslem software. Next, the program determines the frequency of words and identifies the dyads, triads, and quadruples (sets of two, three, and fours) of the given words. Since the main objective of the automatic abstract preparation program is the creation of the condensed version of the given content, the main output appears in a sequence of sentences compiled according to a weighing process, during which the significant words of the given text are ranked according to a point system. It is up to the individual user which method will be used for the identification of significant words. The options include:
I made a survey concerning the efficiency of the program. In the survey I mutually compare abstracts prepared by professional librarians, synopsis compiling experts, and students majoring in information management or library-information science programs with the output of my self-developed software.
As one of my priorities was the examination of the efficiency of the abstract preparation program in addition to anticipating several technological and linguistic setbacks my greatest concern was the quality of the respective output. Consequently, I had to develop clear guidelines concerning the appropriate output and I hoped that the several similar results would provide me with a term of reference and comparison.
In my presentation I would like compare the sentences made by program to sentences of participants of survey and in order to ascertain any difference between the two outputs received via the use of different methodology, the Luhn approach and the vocabulary-based abstract preparation method respectively.