Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.025351325 = product of:
  0.05070265 = sum of:
    0.05070265 = product of:
      0.1014053 = sum of:
        0.1014053 = weight(_text_:b in 8852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1014053 = score(doc=8852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 8852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021729708 = product of:
  0.043459415 = sum of:
    0.043459415 = product of:
      0.08691883 = sum of:
        0.08691883 = weight(_text_:b in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08691883 = score(doc=1453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

b

0.021729708 = product of:
  0.043459415 = sum of:
    0.043459415 = product of:
      0.08691883 = sum of:
        0.08691883 = weight(_text_:b in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08691883 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021729708 = product of:
  0.043459415 = sum of:
    0.043459415 = product of:
      0.08691883 = sum of:
        0.08691883 = weight(_text_:b in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08691883 = score(doc=23,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01810809 = product of:
  0.03621618 = sum of:
    0.03621618 = product of:
      0.07243236 = sum of:
        0.07243236 = weight(_text_:b in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07243236 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.017690076 = product of:
  0.03538015 = sum of:
    0.03538015 = product of:
      0.0707603 = sum of:
        0.0707603 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707603 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

0.01415206 = product of:
  0.02830412 = sum of:
    0.02830412 = product of:
      0.05660824 = sum of:
        0.05660824 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05660824 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.0126756625 = product of:
  0.025351325 = sum of:
    0.025351325 = product of:
      0.05070265 = sum of:
        0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05070265 = score(doc=2930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 2930, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010864854 = product of:
  0.021729708 = sum of:
    0.021729708 = product of:
      0.043459415 = sum of:
        0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 8867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043459415 = score(doc=8867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 8867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010864854 = product of:
  0.021729708 = sum of:
    0.021729708 = product of:
      0.043459415 = sum of:
        0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043459415 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010614045 = product of:
  0.02122809 = sum of:
    0.02122809 = product of:
      0.04245618 = sum of:
        0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04245618 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37

0.010614045 = product of:
  0.02122809 = sum of:
    0.02122809 = product of:
      0.04245618 = sum of:
        0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04245618 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.010614045 = product of:
  0.02122809 = sum of:
    0.02122809 = product of:
      0.04245618 = sum of:
        0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04245618 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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

0.009054045 = product of:
  0.01810809 = sum of:
    0.01810809 = product of:
      0.03621618 = sum of:
        0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03621618 = score(doc=4497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009054045 = product of:
  0.01810809 = sum of:
    0.01810809 = product of:
      0.03621618 = sum of:
        0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03621618 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.008994244 = product of:
  0.017988488 = sum of:
    0.017988488 = product of:
      0.07195395 = sum of:
        0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07195395 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 824, 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=824)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Abstracts from 7 Internet subject trees (Euroferret, Excite, Infoseek, Lycos Top 5%, Magellan, WebCrawler, Yahoo!), 5 Internet subject gateways (ADAM, EEVL, NetFirst, OMNI, SOSIG), and 3 online databases (ERIC, ISI, LISA) were examined for their subject content, treatment of various enriching features, physical properties such as overall length, anf their readability. Considerable differences were measured, and consistent similarities among abstracts from each type of source were demonstrated. Internet subject tree abstracts were generally the shortest, and online database abstracts the longest. Subject tree and online database abstracts were the most informative, but the level of coverage of document features such as tables, bibliographies, and geographical constraints were disappointingly poor. On balance, the Internet gateways appeared to be providing the most satisfactory abstracts. The authors discuss the continuing role in networked information retrieval of abstracts and their functional analoques such as metadata

0.008994244 = product of:
  0.017988488 = sum of:
    0.017988488 = product of:
      0.07195395 = sum of:
        0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07195395 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.

0.008994244 = product of:
  0.017988488 = sum of:
    0.017988488 = product of:
      0.07195395 = sum of:
        0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07195395 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.

0.008845038 = product of:
  0.017690076 = sum of:
    0.017690076 = product of:
      0.03538015 = sum of:
        0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03538015 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.008479855 = product of:
  0.01695971 = sum of:
    0.01695971 = product of:
      0.06783884 = sum of:
        0.06783884 = weight(_text_:authors in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06783884 = score(doc=5603,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.