-
Reischer, J.; Lottes, D.; Meier, F.; Stirner, M.: Evaluation von Summarizing-Systemen : Kommerzielle und freie Systeme im Vergleich (2010)
0.00
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = product of:
0.0054123 = sum of:
0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054123 = score(doc=492,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Montesi, M.; Mackenzie Owen, J.: Revision of author abstracts : how it is carried out by LISA editors (2007)
0.00
0.0011959607 = product of:
0.0023919214 = sum of:
0.0023919214 = product of:
0.0047838427 = sum of:
0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047838427 = score(doc=807,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The literature on abstracts recommends the revision of author supplied abstracts before their inclusion in database collections. However, little guidance is given on how to carry out such revision, and few studies exist on this topic. The purpose of this research paper is to first survey 187 bibliographic databases to ascertain how many did revise abstracts, and then study the practical amendments made by one of these, i.e. LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts). Design/methodology/approach - Database policies were established by e-mail or through alternative sources, with 136 databases out of 187 exhaustively documented. Differences between 100 author-supplied abstracts and the corresponding 100 LISA amended abstracts were classified into sentence-level and beyond sentence-level categories, and then as additions, deletions and rephrasing of text. Findings - Revision of author abstracts was carried out by 66 databases, but in just 32 cases did it imply more than spelling, shortening of length and formula representation. In LISA, amendments were often non-systematic and inconsistent, but still pointed to significant aspects which were discussed. Originality/value - Amendments made by LISA editors are important in multi- and inter-disciplinary research, since they tend to clarify certain aspects such as terminology, and suggest that abstracts should not always be considered as substitutes for the original document. From this point-of-view, the revision of abstracts can be considered as an important factor in enhancing a database's quality.
- Type
- a
-
Ruda, S.: Abstracting: eine Auswahlbibliographie (1992)
0.00
0.0011839407 = product of:
0.0023678814 = sum of:
0.0023678814 = product of:
0.0047357627 = sum of:
0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 6603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047357627 = score(doc=6603,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 6603, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6603)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Jizba, L.: Reflections on summarizing and abstracting : implications for Internet Web documents, and standardized library cataloging databases (1997)
0.00
0.0011839407 = product of:
0.0023678814 = sum of:
0.0023678814 = product of:
0.0047357627 = sum of:
0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047357627 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Kuhlen, R.: Informationsaufbereitung III : Referieren (Abstracts - Abstracting - Grundlagen) (2004)
0.00
0.0011717974 = product of:
0.0023435948 = sum of:
0.0023435948 = product of:
0.0046871896 = sum of:
0.0046871896 = weight(_text_:a in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0046871896 = score(doc=2917,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Was ein Abstract (im Folgenden synonym mit Referat oder Kurzreferat gebraucht) ist, legt das American National Standards Institute in einer Weise fest, die sicherlich von den meisten Fachleuten akzeptiert werden kann: "An abstract is defined as an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document"; fast genauso die deutsche Norm DIN 1426: "Das Kurzreferat gibt kurz und klar den Inhalt des Dokuments wieder." Abstracts gehören zum wissenschaftlichen Alltag. Weitgehend allen Publikationen, zumindest in den naturwissenschaftlichen, technischen, informationsbezogenen oder medizinischen Bereichen, gehen Abstracts voran, "prefe-rably prepared by its author(s) for publication with it". Es gibt wohl keinen Wissenschaftler, der nicht irgendwann einmal ein Abstract geschrieben hätte. Gehört das Erstellen von Abstracts dann überhaupt zur dokumentarischen bzw informationswissenschaftlichen Methodenlehre, wenn es jeder kann? Was macht den informationellen Mehrwert aus, der durch Expertenreferate gegenüber Laienreferaten erzeugt wird? Dies ist nicht so leicht zu beantworten, zumal geeignete Bewertungsverfahren fehlen, die Qualität von Abstracts vergleichend "objektiv" zu messen. Abstracts werden in erheblichem Umfang von Informationsspezialisten erstellt, oft unter der Annahme, dass Autoren selber dafür weniger geeignet sind. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, was wir über Abstracts und Abstracting wissen. Ein besonders gelungenes Abstract ist zuweilen klarer als der Ursprungstext selber, darf aber nicht mehr Information als dieser enthalten: "Good abstracts are highly structured, concise, and coherent, and are the result of a thorough analysis of the content of the abstracted materials. Abstracts may be more readable than the basis documents, but because of size constraints they rarely equal and never surpass the information content of the basic document". Dies ist verständlich, denn ein "Abstract" ist zunächst nichts anderes als ein Ergebnis des Vorgangs einer Abstraktion. Ohne uns zu sehr in die philosophischen Hintergründe der Abstraktion zu verlieren, besteht diese doch "in der Vernachlässigung von bestimmten Vorstellungsbzw. Begriffsinhalten, von welchen zugunsten anderer Teilinhalte abgesehen, abstrahiert' wird. Sie ist stets verbunden mit einer Fixierung von (interessierenden) Merkmalen durch die aktive Aufmerksamkeit, die unter einem bestimmten pragmatischen Gesichtspunkt als wesentlich' für einen vorgestellten bzw für einen unter einen Begriff fallenden Gegenstand (oder eine Mehrheit von Gegenständen) betrachtet werden". Abstracts reduzieren weniger Begriffsinhalte, sondern Texte bezüglich ihres proportionalen Gehaltes. Borko/ Bernier haben dies sogar quantifiziert; sie schätzen den Reduktionsfaktor auf 1:10 bis 1:12
- Type
- a
-
Hahn, U.: Abstracting - Textzusammenfassung (2023)
0.00
0.0010148063 = product of:
0.0020296127 = sum of:
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0040592253 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: ¬The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts (2007)
0.00
8.4567186E-4 = product of:
0.0016913437 = sum of:
0.0016913437 = product of:
0.0033826875 = sum of:
0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033826875 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Brintzinger, K.-R.: Abstracts im Verbund : Von der bibliothekarischen zur nutzerorientierten Erschließung. ein Versuch des Juristischen Seminars der Universität Tübingen (2003)
0.00
6.765375E-4 = product of:
0.001353075 = sum of:
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00270615 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
