Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

0.13686678 = product of:
  0.20530015 = sum of:
    0.010462033 = weight(_text_:in in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010462033 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
    0.19483812 = sum of:
      0.125501 = weight(_text_:education in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.125501 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24110512 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051176514 = queryNorm
          0.520524 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
      0.069337115 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.069337115 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051176514 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses briefly the application of hypertext in library user training with particular reference to a specific hypertext based tutorial designed to teach library school students the basics knowledge of abstracts and abstracting process

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

Source

Journal of education for library and information science. 36(1995) no.2, S.170-173

0.039046686 = product of:
  0.058570027 = sum of:
    0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008369626 = score(doc=5540,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5540, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5540)
    0.050200403 = product of:
      0.100400805 = sum of:
        0.100400805 = weight(_text_:education in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.100400805 = score(doc=5540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24110512 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051176514 = queryNorm
            0.4164192 = fieldWeight in 5540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

State of the art review of UK developments in indexing and abstracting druing the period 1986-1990 covering: bibliographies of indexing and abstracting; British standards (including the revised British Standard on indexing, BS 3700); Wheatley Medal and Carey Award; a list of indexes published during this period; the role of the computer and automatic indexing; hypermedia; PRECIS; POPSI, relational indexing; thesauri; education and training; the indexing process, newspaper indexing; fiction indexes; the indexing profession; and a review of abstracting and indexing services

0.02642186 = product of:
  0.03963279 = sum of:
    0.01883166 = weight(_text_:in in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01883166 = score(doc=2421,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
    0.020801133 = product of:
      0.041602265 = sum of:
        0.041602265 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041602265 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051176514 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2421, 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=2421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Graph-based ranking algorithms have recently been proposed for single document summarizations and such algorithms evaluate the importance of a sentence by making use of the relationships between sentences in the document in a recursive way. In this paper, we investigate using other related or relevant documents to improve summarization of one single document based on the graph-based ranking algorithm. In addition to the within-document relationships between sentences in the specified document, the cross-document relationships between sentences in different documents are also taken into account in the proposed approach. We evaluate the performance of the proposed approach on DUC 2002 data with the ROUGE metric and results demonstrate that the cross-document relationships between sentences in different but related documents can significantly improve the performance of single document summarization.

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; vol.4172

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.024069648 = product of:
  0.03610447 = sum of:
    0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008369626 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
    0.027734846 = product of:
      0.05546969 = sum of:
        0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05546969 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051176514 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reference librarians, who are thoroughly familiar with the purpose, scope and arrangement of abstract periodicals, are uniquely qualified for the task of writing abstracts. The procedures described here offer a relatively simple way for them to write acceptable abstracts from the outset. Although research is being conducted in the area of machine generated abstracts, there wll continue to be a role for human abstractors.

Source

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

0.02322495 = product of:
  0.034837425 = sum of:
    0.014036291 = weight(_text_:in in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014036291 = score(doc=7244,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
    0.020801133 = product of:
      0.041602265 = sum of:
        0.041602265 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041602265 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051176514 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.022237048 = product of:
  0.03335557 = sum of:
    0.012554439 = weight(_text_:in in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012554439 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.020801133 = product of:
      0.041602265 = sum of:
        0.041602265 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041602265 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051176514 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.021419886 = product of:
  0.032129828 = sum of:
    0.014795548 = weight(_text_:in in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014795548 = score(doc=7673,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
    0.017334279 = product of:
      0.034668557 = sum of:
        0.034668557 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034668557 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051176514 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 studies to determine if structured abstracts offer any advantage to users in terms of whether they are easier to search. In study 1, using a specially prepared electronic database of abstracts in either their original format or the structured format, 52 users were asked to find the answers to 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts in traditional format followed by 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts set in the structured format. Time and error data were recorded automatically. In study 2, using a printed database, 56 users were asked to to find 5 abstracts that reprted a particular kind of study and then find 5 more references that reported another kind of study. In study 1 users performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts but there were some unexplainable practice effects. In study 2, the users again performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts. However, there were asymmetrical transfer effects: users who responded first to the structured abstracts responded more quickly to the following traditional abstracts than did those users who responded first to the traditional abstracts. Nevertheless, the overall findings support the hypothesis that it is easier for user to search structured abstracts than it is to search traditional abstracts

Source

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

0.016733468 = product of:
  0.050200403 = sum of:
    0.050200403 = product of:
      0.100400805 = sum of:
        0.100400805 = weight(_text_:education in 6917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.100400805 = score(doc=6917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24110512 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051176514 = queryNorm
            0.4164192 = fieldWeight in 6917, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Attempts to explain the intellectual and cognitive processes which govern the understanding and structure of a text, on the one hand, and writing a summary or abstract on the other, based on the literature of information science, education, cognitive psychology and psychiatry

0.0062383516 = product of:
  0.018715054 = sum of:
    0.018715054 = weight(_text_:in in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018715054 = score(doc=2999,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
  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

0.0059182197 = product of:
  0.017754659 = sum of:
    0.017754659 = weight(_text_:in in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017754659 = score(doc=3115,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Detailed checklists and questionnaires have been used in the past to assess the quality of structured abstracts in the medical sciences. The aim of this article is to report the findings when a simpler checklist was used to evaluate the quality of 100 traditional abstracts published in 53 different social science journals. Most of these abstracts contained information about the aims, methods, and results of the studies. However, many did not report details about the sample sizes, ages, or sexes of the participants, or where the research was carried out. The correlation between the lengths of the abstracts and the amount of information present was 0.37 (p < .001), suggesting that word limits for abstracts may restrict the presence of key information to some extent. We conclude that authors can improve the quality of information in traditional abstracts in the social sciences by using the simple checklist provided in this article.

0.0057831067 = product of:
  0.01734932 = sum of:
    0.01734932 = weight(_text_:in in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01734932 = score(doc=1325,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Previous research assessing the effectiveness of structured abstracts has been limited in two respects. First, when comparing structured abstracts with traditional ones, investigators usually have rewritten the original abstracts, and thus confounded changes in the layout with changes in both the wording and the content of the text. Second, investigators have not always included the title of the article together with the abstract when asking participants to judge the quality of the abstracts, yet titles alert readers to the meaning of the materials that follow. The aim of this research was to redress these limitations. Three studies were carried out. Four versions of each of four abstracts were prepared. These versions consisted of structured/traditional abstracts matched in content, with and without titles. In Study 1, 64 undergraduates each rated one of these abstracts on six separate rating scales. In Study 2, 225 academics and research workers rated the abstracts electronically, and in Study 3, 252 information scientists did likewise. In Studies 1 and 3, the respondents rated the structured abstracts significantly more favorably than they did the traditional ones, but the presence or absence of titles had no effect on their judgments. In Study 2, no main effects were observed for structure or for titles. The layout of the text, together with the subheadings, contributed to the higher ratings of effectiveness for structured abstracts, but the presence or absence of titles had no clear effects in these experimental studies. It is likely that this spatial organization, together with the greater amount of information normally provided in structured abstracts, explains why structured abstracts are generally judged to be superior to traditional ones.

0.0055797505 = product of:
  0.016739251 = sum of:
    0.016739251 = weight(_text_:in in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016739251 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0055797505 = product of:
  0.016739251 = sum of:
    0.016739251 = weight(_text_:in in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016739251 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0055139763 = product of:
  0.016541928 = sum of:
    0.016541928 = weight(_text_:in in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016541928 = score(doc=1961,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The international standard ISO 214:1976 defines an abstract as "an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document" (p. 1) that should "enable readers to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately to determine relevance" (p. 1). It also should be useful in computerized searching. The ISO standard suggests including the following elements: purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Researchers have often challenged this structure and found that different disciplines and cultures prefer different information content. These claims are partially supported by the findings of our research into the structure of pharmacology, sociology, and Slovenian language and literature abstracts of papers published in international and Slovenian scientific periodicals. The three disciplines have different information content. Slovenian pharmacology abstracts differ in content from those in international periodicals while the differences between international and Slovenian abstracts are small in sociology. In the field of Slovenian language and literature, only domestic abstracts were studied. The identified differences can in part be attributed to the disciplines, but also to the different role of journals and papers in the professional society and to differences in perception of the role of abstracts. The findings raise questions about the structure of abstracts required by some publishers of international journals.

0.0054585575 = product of:
  0.016375672 = sum of:
    0.016375672 = weight(_text_:in in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016375672 = score(doc=3740,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0054585575 = product of:
  0.016375672 = sum of:
    0.016375672 = weight(_text_:in in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016375672 = score(doc=255,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Public library catalogues in early twentieth-century Britain frequently included annotations, either to clarify obscure titles or to provide further information about the subject-matter of the books they described. Two manuals giving instruction on how to do this were published at that time. Following World War I, with the decline of the printed catalogue, this kind of annotation became rarer, and was almost confined to bulletins of new books. The early issues of the British National Bibliography included some annotations in exceptional cases. Parallels are drawn with the provision of table-of-contents information in present-day OPAC's.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Cataloger, Editor, and Scholar: Essays in Honor of Ruth C. Carter

0.005125329 = product of:
  0.015375986 = sum of:
    0.015375986 = weight(_text_:in in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015375986 = score(doc=4823,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper is a review of genre analysis of author abstracts carried out in the area of English for Special Purposes (ESP) since 1990. Given the descriptive character of such analysis, it can be valuable for Information Science (IS), as it provides a picture of the variation in author abstracts, depending an the discipline, culture and language of the author, and the envisaged context. The authors claim that such knowledge can be useful for information professionals who need to revise author abstracts, or use them for other activities in the organization of knowledge, such as subject analysis and control of vocabulary. With this purpose in mind, we summarize various findings of ESP research. We describe how abstracts vary in structure, content and discourse, and how linguists explain such variations. Other factors taken into account are the stylistic and discoursal features of the abstract, lexical choices, and the possible sources of blas. In conclusion, we show how such findings can have practical and theoretical implications for IS.

0.00502952 = product of:
  0.015088559 = sum of:
    0.015088559 = weight(_text_:in in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015088559 = score(doc=2676,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.2167489 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2676)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigated an approach to automatic discourse parsing of sociology dissertation abstracts as a sentence categorization task. Decision tree induction was used for the automatic categorization. Three models were developed. Model 1 made use of word tokens found in the sentences. Model 2 made use of both word tokens and sentence position in the abstract. In addition to the attributes used in Model 2, Model 3 also considered information regarding the presence of indicator words in surrounding sentences. Model 3 obtained the highest accuracy rate of 74.5 % when applied to a test sample, compared to 71.6% for Model 2 and 60.8% for Model 1. The results indicated that information about sentence position can substantially increase the accuracy of categorization, and indicator words in earlier sentences (before the sentence being processed) also contribute to the categorization accuracy.

Content

1. Introduction This paper reports our initial effort to develop an automatic method for parsing the discourse structure of sociology dissertation abstracts. This study is part of a broader study to develop a method for multi-document summarization. Accurate discourse parsing will make it easier to perform automatic multi-document summarization of dissertation abstracts. In a previous study, we determined that the macro-level structure of dissertation abstracts typically has five sections (Khoo et al., 2002). In this study, we treated discourse parsing as a text categorization problem - assigning each sentence in a dissertation abstract to one of the five predefined sections or categories. Decision tree induction, a machine-learning method, was applied to word tokens found in the abstracts to construct a decision tree model for the categorization purpose. Decision tree induction was selected primarily because decision tree models are easy to interpret and can be converted to rules that can be incorporated in other computer programs. A well-known decision-tree induction program, C5.0 (Quinlan, 1993), was used in this study.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

0.0049318494 = product of:
  0.014795548 = sum of:
    0.014795548 = weight(_text_:in in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014795548 = score(doc=2362,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0048822816 = product of:
  0.014646845 = sum of:
    0.014646845 = weight(_text_:in in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014646845 = score(doc=687,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
  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