Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Wheatley, A."
  1. Armstrong, C.J.; Wheatley, A.: Writing abstracts for online databases : results of database producers' guidelines (1998) 0.00 
    0.004142815 = product of:
  0.012428444 = sum of:
    0.012428444 = product of:
      0.024856888 = sum of:
        0.024856888 = weight(_text_:of in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024856888 = score(doc=3295,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Reports on one area of research in an Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) MODELS (MOving to Distributed Environments for Library Services) supporting study in 3 investigative areas: examination of current database producers' guidelines for their abstract writers; a brief survey of abstracts in some traditional online databases; and a detailed survey of abstracts from 3 types of electronic database (print sourced online databases, Internet subject trees or directories, and Internet gateways). Examination of database producers' guidelines, reported here, gave a clear view of the intentions behind professionally produced traditional (printed index based) database abstracts and provided a benchmark against which to judge the conclusions of the larger investigations into abstract style, readability and content
  2. Wheatley, A.: Subject trees on the Internet : a new role for bibliographic classification? (2000) 0.00 
    0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 6108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=6108,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 6108, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Internet information retrieval is largely the preserve of search engines and the even more popular subject trees. Subject trees have adapted principles of conventional bibliographic classification for structuring hierarchic browsing interfaces, thus providing easily used pathways to their selected resources. This combination of browsing and selectivity is especially valuable to untrained users. For the forseeable future, it appears that subject trees will remain the Internet's only practicable use of classificatory methods for information retrieval
    Source
    Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(2000) nos.3/4, S.115-141
  3. Wheatley, A.; Armstrong, C.J.: Metadata, recall, and abstracts : can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value? (1997) 0.00 
    0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=824,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Abstracts from 7 Internet subject trees (Euroferret, Excite, Infoseek, Lycos Top 5%, Magellan, WebCrawler, Yahoo!), 5 Internet subject gateways (ADAM, EEVL, NetFirst, OMNI, SOSIG), and 3 online databases (ERIC, ISI, LISA) were examined for their subject content, treatment of various enriching features, physical properties such as overall length, anf their readability. Considerable differences were measured, and consistent similarities among abstracts from each type of source were demonstrated. Internet subject tree abstracts were generally the shortest, and online database abstracts the longest. Subject tree and online database abstracts were the most informative, but the level of coverage of document features such as tables, bibliographies, and geographical constraints were disappointingly poor. On balance, the Internet gateways appeared to be providing the most satisfactory abstracts. The authors discuss the continuing role in networked information retrieval of abstracts and their functional analoques such as metadata
  4. Wheatley, A.: ¬A manual on printed subject indexes : report to the British Library Research and Development Department on Project SI/G/243 (1978) 0.00 
    0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Imprint
    Aberystwyth : College of Librarianship Wales

Years

Types

Themes

Subjects