-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? (1997)
0.04
0.036396094 = product of:
0.14558437 = sum of:
0.14558437 = weight(_text_:social in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14558437 = score(doc=2749,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.7881145 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Structured abstracts have now become widespread in medical research journals. Considers whether or not such structured abstracts can be used effectively in social science journals. Reviews a a selection of studies to see if structured abstracts written for social science journals are more informative, easier to read and easier to search than their traditional equivalents. Results suggest that structured abstracts are appropriate for social science journals. Editors of social science journals should consider adopting structured abstracts
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.03
0.033829853 = product of:
0.067659706 = sum of:
0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04883048 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
0.018829225 = product of:
0.03765845 = sum of:
0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03765845 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Structured abstracts are abstracts which include subheadings such as: background, aims, participants methods and results. These are rapidly replacing traditional abstracts in medical periodicals, but the number and detail of the subheadings used varies, and there is a range of different typographic settings. Reviews a number of studies designed to investigate readers' preferences for different typographic settings and layout. Over 400 readers took part in the study: students; postgraduates; research workers and academics in the social sciences. The most preferred version emerged from the last of 3 studies and 2 additional studies were then carried out to determine preferences for the overall position and layout of this most preferred version on a A4 page. The most preferred version for the setting of the subheadings are printed in bold capital letters
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
-
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)
0.02
0.02301891 = product of:
0.09207564 = sum of:
0.09207564 = weight(_text_:social in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09207564 = score(doc=2536,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.49844736 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Reports on a comparison of the "content categories" listed in the ANSI/ISO abstracting standards to actual content found in abstracts from the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. The preliminary findings question the fundamental concept underlying these standards, namely, that any one set of standards and generalized instructions can describe and elicit the optimal configuration for abstracts from all subject areas
-
Spiteri, L.F.: Library and information science vs business : a comparison of approaches to abstracting (1997)
0.01
0.009149151 = product of:
0.036596604 = sum of:
0.036596604 = product of:
0.07319321 = sum of:
0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07319321 = score(doc=3699,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
-
Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995)
0.01
0.007845511 = product of:
0.031382043 = sum of:
0.031382043 = product of:
0.062764086 = sum of:
0.062764086 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062764086 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 27. 1.1996 18:22:06
-
Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996)
0.00
0.004707306 = product of:
0.018829225 = sum of:
0.018829225 = product of:
0.03765845 = sum of:
0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03765845 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.00
0.0039227554 = product of:
0.015691021 = sum of:
0.015691021 = product of:
0.031382043 = sum of:
0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031382043 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
