Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0020313188 = product of:
  0.020313188 = sum of:
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
    0.015604248 = product of:
      0.031208497 = sum of:
        0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031208497 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Reference librarians, who are thoroughly familiar with the purpose, scope and arrangement of abstract periodicals, are uniquely qualified for the task of writing abstracts. The procedures described here offer a relatively simple way for them to write acceptable abstracts from the outset. Although research is being conducted in the area of machine generated abstracts, there wll continue to be a role for human abstractors.

Source

Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308

4.994586E-4 = product of:
  0.009989171 = sum of:
    0.009989171 = weight(_text_:in in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009989171 = score(doc=1453,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Content

Fortsetzung einer Ausgabe von 1980, die die Literatur bis 1976 berücksichtigt. - Laufende Fortsetzung in: The indexer

Footnote

Rez. in: International classification 13(1986) S.103 (I. Dahlberg)

4.0780622E-4 = product of:
  0.0081561245 = sum of:
    0.0081561245 = weight(_text_:in in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0081561245 = score(doc=684,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

A survey of abstracting policies by producers of bibliographical databases examined abstracting guidelines which aim to enhance free- text retrieval. Of the 123 database policies examined, fifty-seven (46 per cent) included such instructions. Editors consider contents of abstracts and their language as a primary factor in retrieval enhancement. Most recommend that once abstractors decide which concepts to include in abstracts and in which form to represent them, these terms should be co-ordinated with index terms assigned from a controlled vocabulary. Guidelines about the type of abstracts, i.e., informative or indicative, and about their length are not affected by the capability of free-text retrieval

3.3297235E-4 = product of:
  0.006659447 = sum of:
    0.006659447 = weight(_text_:in in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006659447 = score(doc=689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: BAKER, D.B.: Abstracting and indexing services: past, present, and future; KENNEDY, H.E.: A perspective on fifteen years in the abstracting and indexing field; WEIL, B.H.: Will abstracts survive technological developments? and will "cheaper is better" win out?; KILGOUR, F.G.: Comparative development of abstracting and indexing, and monograph cataloging; ROWLETT, R.J.: Abstracts, who needs them?

2.9430876E-4 = product of:
  0.005886175 = sum of:
    0.005886175 = weight(_text_:in in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005886175 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Presents a theoretical model, based on the Flower/Hayes model of expository writing, of the process involved in content analysis for abstracting and indexing.