-
Armstrong, C.J.; Wheatley, A.: Writing abstracts for online databases : results of database producers' guidelines (1998)
0.00
0.0010075148 = product of:
0.004030059 = sum of:
0.004030059 = product of:
0.012090176 = sum of:
0.012090176 = weight(_text_:a in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012090176 = score(doc=3295,freq=12.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬An empirical process model of abstracting (1992)
0.00
9.97181E-4 = product of:
0.003988724 = sum of:
0.003988724 = product of:
0.011966172 = sum of:
0.011966172 = weight(_text_:a in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011966172 = score(doc=8834,freq=4.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Mensch und Maschine: Informationelle Schnittstellen der Kommunikation. Proc. des 3. Int. Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI'92), 5.-7.11.1992 in Saarbrücken. Hrsg.: H.H. Zimmermann, H.-D. Luckhardt u. A. Schulz
- Type
- a
-
Bienert, F.: Probleme der Annotation in der Öffentlichen Bibliothek (1971)
0.00
9.401512E-4 = product of:
0.003760605 = sum of:
0.003760605 = product of:
0.011281814 = sum of:
0.011281814 = weight(_text_:a in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011281814 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Fidel, R.: Writing abstracts for free-text searching (1986)
0.00
9.401512E-4 = product of:
0.003760605 = sum of:
0.003760605 = product of:
0.011281814 = sum of:
0.011281814 = weight(_text_:a in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011281814 = score(doc=684,freq=8.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Harbeck, R.; Lutterbeck, E.: Inhaltsangaben in der Dokumentation (1968)
0.00
9.401512E-4 = product of:
0.003760605 = sum of:
0.003760605 = product of:
0.011281814 = sum of:
0.011281814 = weight(_text_:a in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011281814 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Liebhart, S.: Für eine dreigeteilte, variable Allzwecknotation (1971)
0.00
9.401512E-4 = product of:
0.003760605 = sum of:
0.003760605 = product of:
0.011281814 = sum of:
0.011281814 = weight(_text_:a in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011281814 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Molina, M.P.: Documentary abstracting : toward a methodological approach (1995)
0.00
9.401512E-4 = product of:
0.003760605 = sum of:
0.003760605 = product of:
0.011281814 = sum of:
0.011281814 = weight(_text_:a in 1790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011281814 = score(doc=1790,freq=8.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1790, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1790)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- In the general abstracting process (GAP), there are 2 types of data: textual, within a particular framed trilogy (surface, deep, and rhetoric); and documentary (abstractor, means of production, and user demands). Proposes its development, the use of the following disciplines, among others: linguistics (structural, tranformational, and textual), logic (formal and fuzzy), and psychology (cognitive). The model for that textual transformation is based on a system of combined strategies with 4 key stages: reading understanding, selection, interpretation, and synthesis
- Type
- a
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998)
0.00
9.401512E-4 = product of:
0.003760605 = sum of:
0.003760605 = product of:
0.011281814 = sum of:
0.011281814 = weight(_text_:a in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011281814 = score(doc=2999,freq=8.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Wilson, M.J.; Wilson, M.L.: ¬A comparison of techniques for measuring sensemaking and learning within participant-generated summaries (2013)
0.00
9.2906854E-4 = product of:
0.0037162742 = sum of:
0.0037162742 = product of:
0.0111488225 = sum of:
0.0111488225 = weight(_text_:a in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0111488225 = score(doc=612,freq=20.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.
- Type
- a
-
Rothkegel, A.: Abstracting from the perspective of text production (1995)
0.00
9.19731E-4 = product of:
0.003678924 = sum of:
0.003678924 = product of:
0.011036771 = sum of:
0.011036771 = weight(_text_:a in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011036771 = score(doc=3740,freq=10.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- An abstract itself is a text which is subjected to general and specific conditions of text production. The goal - namely the forming of the abstract as a text - controls the whole process of abstracting. This goal oriented view contrasts to most approaches in this domain which are source text oriented. Production strategies are described in terms of text structure building processes which are reconstructed with methods of modelling in the area of text linguistics and computational linguistics. This leads to a close relationship between thr representation of the model and the resulting text. Gives examples in which authentic material of abstracts is analyzed according to the model. The model itself integrates 3 text levels which are combined and represented in terms of the writer's activities
- Type
- a
-
Spiteri, L.F.: Library and information science vs business : a comparison of approaches to abstracting (1997)
0.00
9.19731E-4 = product of:
0.003678924 = sum of:
0.003678924 = product of:
0.011036771 = sum of:
0.011036771 = weight(_text_:a in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011036771 = score(doc=3699,freq=10.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
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
- Type
- a
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008)
0.00
8.309842E-4 = product of:
0.0033239368 = sum of:
0.0033239368 = product of:
0.0099718105 = sum of:
0.0099718105 = weight(_text_:a in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0099718105 = score(doc=2362,freq=16.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Many writers of structured abstracts spend a good deal of time revising and polishing their texts - but is it worth it? Do readers notice the difference? In this paper we report three studies of readers using rating scales to judge (electronically) the clarity of an original and a revised abstract, both as a whole and in its constituent parts. In Study 1, with approximately 250 academics and research workers, we found some significant differences in favor of the revised abstract, but in Study 2, with approximately 210 information scientists, we found no significant effects. Pooling the data from Studies 1 and 2, however, in Study 3, led to significant differences at a higher probability level between the perception of the original and revised abstract as a whole and between the same components as found in Study 1. These results thus indicate that the revised abstract as a whole, as well as certain specific components of it, were judged significantly clearer than the original one. In short, the results of these experiments show that readers can and do perceive differences between original and revised texts - sometimes - and that therefore these efforts are worth the time and effort.
- Type
- a
-
Alonso, M.I.; Fernández, L.M.M.: Perspectives of studies on document abstracting : towards an integrated view of models and theoretical approaches (2010)
0.00
8.309842E-4 = product of:
0.0033239368 = sum of:
0.0033239368 = product of:
0.0099718105 = sum of:
0.0099718105 = weight(_text_:a in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0099718105 = score(doc=3959,freq=16.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The aim of this paper is to systemize and improve the scientific status of studies on document abstracting. This is a diachronic, systematic study of document abstracting studies carried out from different perspectives and models (textual, psycholinguistic, social and communicative). Design/methodology/approach - A review of the perspectives and analysis proposals which are of interest to the various theoreticians of abstracting is carried out using a variety of techniques and approaches (cognitive, linguistic, communicative-social, didactic, etc.), each with different levels of theoretical and methodological abstraction and degrees of application. The most significant contributions of each are reviewed and highlighted, along with their limitations. Findings - It is found that the great challenge in abstracting is the systemization of models and conceptual apparatus, which open up this type of research to semiotic and socio-interactional perspectives. It is necessary to carry out suitable empirical research with operative designs and ad hoc measuring instruments which can measure the efficiency of the abstracting and the efficiency of a good abstract, while at the same time feeding back into the theoretical baggage of this type of study. Such research will have to explain and provide answers to all the elements and variables, which affect the realization and the reception of a quality abstract. Originality/value - The paper provides a small map of the studies on document abstracting. This shows how the conceptual and methodological framework has extended at the same time as the Science of Documentation has been evolving. All the models analysed - the communicative and interactional approach - are integrated in a new systematic framework.
- Type
- a
-
Kuhlen, R.: Abstracts, abstracting : intellektuelle und maschinelle Verfahren (1990)
0.00
8.2263234E-4 = product of:
0.0032905294 = sum of:
0.0032905294 = product of:
0.009871588 = sum of:
0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009871588 = score(doc=2333,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Heinrich, G.: ¬Die "Allzweck-Annotation" und der annotierte Katalogzetteldienst : offene Fragen und mögliche Alternativen (1971)
0.00
8.2263234E-4 = product of:
0.0032905294 = sum of:
0.0032905294 = product of:
0.009871588 = sum of:
0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009871588 = score(doc=4858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4858)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Schott, H.; Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬Ein individuelles prozedurales Modell des Abstracting (1992)
0.00
8.2263234E-4 = product of:
0.0032905294 = sum of:
0.0032905294 = product of:
0.009871588 = sum of:
0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 8852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009871588 = score(doc=8852,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 8852, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8852)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Kuhlen, R.: Volltextanalyse zum Zwecke des Abstracting (1983)
0.00
8.2263234E-4 = product of:
0.0032905294 = sum of:
0.0032905294 = product of:
0.009871588 = sum of:
0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009871588 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Gerdel, W.: Anforderungen an Referier Regeln aus Benutzersicht (1983)
0.00
8.2263234E-4 = product of:
0.0032905294 = sum of:
0.0032905294 = product of:
0.009871588 = sum of:
0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009871588 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Eimermacher, M.: Textverstehen im Projekt KIT : kognitive Verfahren zur Informationsextraktion und Zusammenfassung aus Texten (1983)
0.00
8.2263234E-4 = product of:
0.0032905294 = sum of:
0.0032905294 = product of:
0.009871588 = sum of:
0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009871588 = score(doc=449,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
-
Hahn, U.; Reimer, U.: Informationslinguistische Konzepte der Volltextverarbeitung in TOPIC (1983)
0.00
8.2263234E-4 = product of:
0.0032905294 = sum of:
0.0032905294 = product of:
0.009871588 = sum of:
0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009871588 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.04800207 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Type
- a
