-
Fraenkel, A.S.; Klein, S.T.: Information retrieval from annotated texts (1999)
0.02
0.022467969 = product of:
0.07863789 = sum of:
0.025370965 = weight(_text_:information in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025370965 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
0.053266928 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053266928 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.10, S.845-854
-
Cremmins, E.T.: ¬The art of abstracting (1996)
0.02
0.01604855 = product of:
0.056169923 = sum of:
0.018122118 = weight(_text_:information in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018122118 = score(doc=282,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
0.038047805 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038047805 = score(doc=282,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Reviews, enlarges upon and refines the author's three-stage analytical reading method (retrieval reading, creative reading and critical reading) for the preparation of informative and indicative literature abstracts
- Content
- 1st ed.: Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information 1982
- Imprint
- Arlington, VA : Information resources Press
-
Cremmins, E.T.: ¬The art of abstracting (1996)
0.01
0.014554595 = product of:
0.05094108 = sum of:
0.020502837 = weight(_text_:information in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020502837 = score(doc=1007,freq=8.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
0.030438244 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030438244 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Reviews, enlarges upon and refines the author's three-stage analytical reading method (retrieval reading, creative reading and critical reading) for the preparation of informative and indicative literature abstracts
- Content
- 1st ed.: Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information 1982
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of chemical information and computer sciences 36(1996) no.5, S.1050 (V.K. Raman); Information processing and management 33(1997) no.4, S.573 (H.R. Tibbo)
- Imprint
- Arlington, VA : Information resources Press
-
O'Rourke, A.J.: Structured abstracts in information retrieval from biomedical databases : a literature survey (1997)
0.01
0.014385968 = product of:
0.050350886 = sum of:
0.012685482 = weight(_text_:information in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012685482 = score(doc=85,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
0.037665404 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037665404 = score(doc=85,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Clear guidelines have been provided for structuring the abstracts of original research and review articles and, in the past 10 years, several major medical periodicals have adopted the policy of including such abstracts with all their articles. A review of the literature reveals that proponents claim that structured abstracts enhance peer review, improve information retrieval, and ease critical appraisal. However, some periodicals have not adopted structured abstracts and their opponents claim that they make articles longer and harder to read and restrict author originality. Concludes that previous research on structured abstracts focused on how closely they followed prescribed structure and include salient points of the full text, rather than their role in increasing the usefulness of the article
-
Tibbo, H.R.: Abstracting across the disciplines : a content analysis of abstracts for the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval (1992)
0.01
0.01283884 = product of:
0.044935938 = sum of:
0.014497695 = weight(_text_:information in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014497695 = score(doc=2536,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.030438244 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030438244 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Source
- Library and information science research. 14(1992) no.1, S.31-56
-
Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1991)
0.01
0.012735272 = product of:
0.04457345 = sum of:
0.017939983 = weight(_text_:information in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017939983 = score(doc=752,freq=8.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.026633464 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026633464 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Content
- Enthält folgende Kapitel: Pre-coordinate indexes; consistency of indexing: quality of indexing; abstracts: types and functions, writing the abstract, natural language in information retrieval, automatic indexing. There are exercises in both indexing and abstracting procedures
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Library and information science resaerch 14(1992) no.1, S.117-118 (C. Tenopir); International classification 19(1992) no.4, S.227-228 (R. Fugmann); Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43(1992) no.6, S.456 (B.R. Boyce); Cataloging & classification quarterly 15(1992) no.1, S.245-247 (E.M. Rasmussen) Journal of academic librarianship 18(1992) no.1, S.39 (G.A. Crawford) // Winner of the 1992 ASIS best information science book award
-
Booth, A.; O'Rouke, A.J.: ¬The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE (1997)
0.01
0.011625619 = product of:
0.040689662 = sum of:
0.010251419 = weight(_text_:information in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010251419 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
0.030438244 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030438244 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
-
Wheatley, A.; Armstrong, C.J.: Metadata, recall, and abstracts : can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value? (1997)
0.01
0.008719213 = product of:
0.030517247 = sum of:
0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007688564 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
0.022828683 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022828683 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- 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
-
Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995)
0.01
0.008517504 = product of:
0.029811263 = sum of:
0.012814272 = weight(_text_:information in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012814272 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
0.01699699 = product of:
0.050990973 = sum of:
0.050990973 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050990973 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 27. 1.1996 18:22:06
- Source
- Journal of education for library and information science. 36(1995) no.2, S.170-173
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.01
0.0051105022 = product of:
0.017886758 = sum of:
0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007688564 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
0.0101981945 = product of:
0.030594582 = sum of:
0.030594582 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030594582 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
-
Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996)
0.01
0.0051105022 = product of:
0.017886758 = sum of:
0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007688564 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
0.0101981945 = product of:
0.030594582 = sum of:
0.030594582 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030594582 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
- Source
- Journal of librarianship and information science. 28(1996) no.4, S.217-225
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.01
0.0050170156 = product of:
0.017559554 = sum of:
0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009061059 = score(doc=7673,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
0.008498495 = product of:
0.025495486 = sum of:
0.025495486 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025495486 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
-
Summarizing text : [Themenheft] (1995)
0.00
0.002928977 = product of:
0.020502837 = sum of:
0.020502837 = weight(_text_:information in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020502837 = score(doc=3872,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.625-784
-
McIntosh, N.: Structured abstracts and information transfer (1994)
0.00
0.0029060042 = product of:
0.020342028 = sum of:
0.020342028 = weight(_text_:information in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020342028 = score(doc=728,freq=14.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study, conducted by the European Society of Paediatric Research (ESPR), to determine whether the information content of structured medical abstracts is greater than abstracts with traditional format and whether the efficacy of peer review is improved by the use of structured medical abstracts. The sample studied comprised the abstracts of papers submitted for the ESPR annual meeting and each abstract was assessed by a research worker by a research worker for information content by referring to a list of criteria. The words in each abstract were counted to obtain the information density of each and the abstracts were evaluated according to whether they were in an unstructured format, a semistructured format, or a more fully structured format. Although there was no significant difference in the scientific score of the scientific information density of the different formats there was significantly more information in the fully structured format. When the abstracts were resubmitted in structured format, there was always a highly significant increase in the information content
-
Sen, B.K.: Research articles in LISA Plus : problems of identification (1997)
0.00
0.002562855 = product of:
0.017939983 = sum of:
0.017939983 = weight(_text_:information in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017939983 = score(doc=430,freq=8.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to determine how easy and quickly research articles in library and information science could be retrieved from the LISA Plus CD-ROM database. Results show that the search with the descriptor 'research' retrieves all types of articles and it is necessary to read through every abstract to locate the research articles. The introductory sentence of a substantial number of abstracts hinder the process of identification since the sentence provides such information as the conference where the paper was presented, the special issue or the section of a periodical where the article is located; or obvious background information. Suggests measures whereby research articles can be identified easily and rapidly
- Source
- Malaysian journal of library and information science. 2(1997) no.1, S.97-106
-
Jizba, L.: Reflections on summarizing and abstracting : implications for Internet Web documents, and standardized library cataloging databases (1997)
0.00
0.0022194972 = product of:
0.015536481 = sum of:
0.015536481 = weight(_text_:information in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015536481 = score(doc=701,freq=6.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Comments on the value of abstracts or summary notes to information available online via the Internet and WWW and concludes that automated abstracting techniques would be highly useful if routinely applied to cataloguing or metadata for Internet documents and documents in other databases. Information seekers need external summary information to assess content and value of retrieved documents. Examines traditional models for writers, in library audiovisual cataloguing, periodical databases and archival work, along with innovative new model databases featuring robust cataloguing summaries. Notes recent developments in automated techniques, computational research, and machine summarization of digital images. Recommendations are made for future designers of cataloguing and metadata standards
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? (1997)
0.00
0.001960146 = product of:
0.013721022 = sum of:
0.013721022 = product of:
0.041163065 = sum of:
0.041163065 = weight(_text_:29 in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041163065 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 25. 2.1997 10:29:16
-
Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Summarizing information (1998)
0.00
0.0019024262 = product of:
0.013316983 = sum of:
0.013316983 = weight(_text_:information in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013316983 = score(doc=688,freq=6.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Summarizing is the process of reducing the large information size of something like a novel or a scientific paper to a short summary or abstract comprising only the most essential points. Summarizing is frequent in everyday communication, but it is also a professional skill for journalists and others. Automated summarizing functions are urgently needed by Internet users who wish to avoid being overwhelmed by information. This book presents the state of the art and surveys related research; it deals with everyday and professional summarizing as well as computerized approaches. The author focuses in detail on the cognitive pro-cess involved in summarizing and supports this with a multimedia simulation systems on the accompanying CD-ROM
-
Busch-Lauer, I.-A.: Abstracts in German medical journals : a linguistic analysis (1995)
0.00
0.0018122118 = product of:
0.012685482 = sum of:
0.012685482 = weight(_text_:information in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012685482 = score(doc=3677,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Compares formats and linguistic devices of German abstracts and their English equivalents, written by German medical scholars to English native speakers. The source is 20 abstracts taken from German medical journals representing different degrees of specialism. The analysis includes: the overall length of articles/abstracts; the representation/arrangement of sections; the linguistic devices. Results show no correlation between the length of articles and the length of abstracts. In contrast to native speaking author abstracts, 'background information' predominated in the structure of the studied German non-native speaker abstracts, whereas 'purpose of study' and 'conclusions' were not clearly stated. In linguistic terms, the German abstracts frequently contained lexical hegdes, complex and enumerating sentence structure; passive voice and post tense as well as various types of linking structures
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.769-776
-
Spiteri, L.F.: Library and information science vs business : a comparison of approaches to abstracting (1997)
0.00
0.0018122118 = product of:
0.012685482 = sum of:
0.012685482 = weight(_text_:information in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012685482 = score(doc=3699,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- The library and information science (LIS) literature on abstracting makes little mention about abstracting conducted in the corporate / business environment, whereas the business literature suggests that abstarcting is a very important component of business writing. Examines a variety of publications from LIS and business in order to compare and contrast their approaches to the following aspects of abstracting: definitions of abstracts; types of abstracts; purpose of abstracts; and writing of abstracts. Summarises the results of the examination which revealed a number of similarities, differences, and inadequacies in the ways in which both fields approach abstracting. Concludes that both fields need to develop more detailed guidelines concerning the cognitive process of abstracting and suggests improvements to the training af absractors based on these findings
