Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031849083 = product of:
  0.095547244 = sum of:
    0.095547244 = sum of:
      0.05529138 = weight(_text_:form in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05529138 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20323196 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049520254 = queryNorm
          0.27206045 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
      0.040255863 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040255863 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17341149 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049520254 = 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)

Abstract

Considers the principles of indexing and the intellectual skills involved in order to determine what automatic indexing systems would be required in order to supplant or complement the human indexer. Good indexing requires: considerable prior knowledge of the literature; judgement as to what to index and what depth to index; reading skills; abstracting skills; and classification skills, Illustrates these features with a detailed description of abstracting and indexing processes involved in generating entries for the mechanical engineering database POWERLINK. Briefly assesses the possibility of replacing human indexers with specialist indexing software, with particular reference to the Object Analyzer from the InTEXT automatic indexing system and using the criteria described for human indexers. At present, it is unlikely that the automatic indexer will replace the human indexer, but when more primary texts are available in electronic form, it may be a useful productivity tool for dealing with large quantities of low grade texts (should they be wanted in the database)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.012286972 = product of:
  0.036860917 = sum of:
    0.036860917 = product of:
      0.07372183 = sum of:
        0.07372183 = weight(_text_:form in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07372183 = score(doc=684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20323196 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = queryNorm
            0.36274725 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.012286972 = product of:
  0.036860917 = sum of:
    0.036860917 = product of:
      0.07372183 = sum of:
        0.07372183 = weight(_text_:form in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07372183 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20323196 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = queryNorm
            0.36274725 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to consider whether or not structured abstracts can be used efectively in non medical science periodicals. Reviews a selection of studies on structured abstracts from the medical and psychological literature, presents examples of structured abstracts published in non medical science periodicals and considers how original abstracts might be written in a structured form for these periodicals. Concludes that, in light of these example studies, editors of these periodicals should consider the value of adopting structured abstracts

0.011182184 = product of:
  0.033546552 = sum of:
    0.033546552 = product of:
      0.067093104 = sum of:
        0.067093104 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067093104 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17341149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

0.010751101 = product of:
  0.032253303 = sum of:
    0.032253303 = product of:
      0.064506605 = sum of:
        0.064506605 = weight(_text_:form in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064506605 = score(doc=687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20323196 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = queryNorm
            0.31740385 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The need for criteria by which to judge the adequacy of an abstract is felt most strongly when evaluating machine-produced abstracts. In order to develop a set of criteria, a survey was conducted of the instructions prepared by various scientific publications as a guide to their abstracters in the preparation of copy. One-hundred-and-thirty sets of instructions were analyzed and compared as to their function, content, and form. It was concluded that, while differences in subject matter do not necessarily require different kinds of abstracts, there are significant variations between the informative and the indicative abstract. A set of criteria for the writing of an acceptable abstract of science literature was derived. The adequacy of these criteria is still to be validated, and the athors' plans for fututre research in this area are specified

0.00921523 = product of:
  0.02764569 = sum of:
    0.02764569 = product of:
      0.05529138 = sum of:
        0.05529138 = weight(_text_:form in 4446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05529138 = score(doc=4446,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20323196 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = queryNorm
            0.27206045 = fieldWeight in 4446, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4446)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The technological revolution is affecting the structure, form and content of documents, reducing the effectiveness of traditional abstracts that, to some extent, are inadequate to the new documentary conditions. Aims to show the directions in which abstracting/abstracts can evolve to achieve the necessary adequacy in the new digital environments. Three researching trends are proposed: theoretical, methodological and pragmatic. Theoretically, there are some needs for expanding the document concept, reengineering abstracting and designing interdisciplinary models. Methodologically, the trend is toward the structuring, automating and qualifying of the abstracts. Pragmatically, abstracts networking, combined with alternative and complementary models, open a new and promising horizon. Automating, structuring and qualifying abstracting/abstract offer some short-term prospects for progress. Concludes that reengineering, networking and visualising would be middle-term fruitful areas of research toward the full adequacy of abstracting in the new electronic age.

0.00921523 = product of:
  0.02764569 = sum of:
    0.02764569 = product of:
      0.05529138 = sum of:
        0.05529138 = weight(_text_:form in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05529138 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20323196 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = queryNorm
            0.27206045 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.104017 = idf(docFreq=1983, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Indexing and abstracting are not activities that should be looked upon as ends in themselves. It is the results of these activities that should be evaluated and this can only be done within the context of a particular database, whether in printed or machine-readable form. In this context, the indexing can be judged successful if it allows searchers to locate items they want without having to look at many they do not want. This book intended primarily as a text to be used in teaching indexing and abstracting of Library and information science. It is an immense value to all individuals and institutions involved in information retrieval and related activities, including librarians, managers of information centres and database producers.

0.008945748 = product of:
  0.026837243 = sum of:
    0.026837243 = product of:
      0.053674486 = sum of:
        0.053674486 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053674486 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17341149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.0067093107 = product of:
  0.020127932 = sum of:
    0.020127932 = product of:
      0.040255863 = sum of:
        0.040255863 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040255863 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17341149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37

0.005591092 = product of:
  0.016773276 = sum of:
    0.016773276 = product of:
      0.033546552 = sum of:
        0.033546552 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033546552 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17341149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049520254 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356