Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027252799 = sum of:
  0.00950861 = product of:
    0.05705166 = sum of:
      0.05705166 = weight(_text_:authors in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05705166 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041410286 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.01774419 = product of:
    0.03548838 = sum of:
      0.03548838 = weight(_text_:p in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03548838 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041410286 = queryNorm
          0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0104558645 = product of:
  0.020911729 = sum of:
    0.020911729 = product of:
      0.041823458 = sum of:
        0.041823458 = weight(_text_:p in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041823458 = score(doc=1961,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041410286 = queryNorm
            0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.008415783 = product of:
  0.016831566 = sum of:
    0.016831566 = product of:
      0.03366313 = sum of:
        0.03366313 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03366313 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041410286 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.004754305 = product of:
  0.00950861 = sum of:
    0.00950861 = product of:
      0.05705166 = sum of:
        0.05705166 = weight(_text_:authors in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05705166 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041410286 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0044824015 = product of:
  0.008964803 = sum of:
    0.008964803 = product of:
      0.05378882 = sum of:
        0.05378882 = weight(_text_:authors in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05378882 = score(doc=5603,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041410286 = queryNorm
            0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure of a small number of abstracts that have appeared in the CABI database over a number of years, during which time the authorship of the abstracts changed from CABI editorial staff to journal article authors themselves. This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology in an effort to discover whether these abstracts followed generally agreed abstracting guidelines. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted was a move analysis of the text of the abstracts. This move analysis revealed a five-move pattern: move 1 situates the research within the scientific community; move 2 introduces the research by either describing the main features of the research or presenting its purpose; move 3 describes the methodology; move 4 states the results; and move 5 draws conclusions or suggests practical applications. Findings - Thematic analysis shows that scientific abstract authors thematise their subject by referring to the discourse domain or the "real" world. Not all of the abstracts succeeded in following the guideline advice. However, there was general consistency regarding semantic organisation and thematic structure. Research limitations/implications - The research limitations were the small number of abstracts examined, from just one subject domain. Practical limitations - The practical implications are the need for abstracting services to be clearer and more prescriptive regarding how they want abstracts to be structured as the lack of formal training in abstract writing increases the risk of subjectivity and verbosity and reduces clarity in scientific abstracts. Another implication of the research are that abstracting and indexing services must ensure that they maintain abstract quality if they introduce policies of accepting author abstracts. This is important as there is probably little formal training in abstract writing for science students at present. Recommendations for further research are made. Originality/value - This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology.

0.0039619207 = product of:
  0.0079238415 = sum of:
    0.0079238415 = product of:
      0.04754305 = sum of:
        0.04754305 = weight(_text_:authors in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04754305 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041410286 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Based on the salient features of the documents, automatic text summarization systems extract the key sentences from source documents. This process supports the users in evaluating the relevance of the extracted documents returned by information retrieval systems. Because of this tool, efficient filtering can be achieved. Indirectly, these systems help to resolve the problem of information overloading. Many automatic text summarization systems have been implemented for use with different languages. It has been established that the grammatical and lexical differences between languages have a significant effect on text processing. However, the impact of the language differences on the automatic text summarization systems has not yet been investigated. The authors provide an impact analysis of language difference on automatic text summarization. It includes the effect on the extraction processes, the scoring mechanisms, the performance, and the matching of the extracted sentences, using the parallel corpus in English and Chinese as the tested object. The analysis results provide a greater understanding of language differences and promote the future development of more advanced text summarization techniques.