Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.04 
    0.04268246 = product of:
  0.08536492 = sum of:
    0.08536492 = sum of:
      0.013496018 = weight(_text_:a in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013496018 = score(doc=3061,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
      0.071868904 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071868904 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  2. Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988) 0.03 
    0.034145966 = product of:
  0.06829193 = sum of:
    0.06829193 = sum of:
      0.010796814 = weight(_text_:a in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010796814 = score(doc=2832,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
      0.05749512 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05749512 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  3. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.03 
    0.026235826 = product of:
  0.052471653 = sum of:
    0.052471653 = sum of:
      0.009350315 = weight(_text_:a in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009350315 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
      0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043121338 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  4. Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996) 0.03 
    0.025609475 = product of:
  0.05121895 = sum of:
    0.05121895 = sum of:
      0.00809761 = weight(_text_:a in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00809761 = score(doc=7244,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
      0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043121338 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  5. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.03 
    0.025609475 = product of:
  0.05121895 = sum of:
    0.05121895 = sum of:
      0.00809761 = weight(_text_:a in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00809761 = score(doc=2421,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
      0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043121338 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
    Type
    a
  6. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.02 
    0.022323046 = product of:
  0.04464609 = sum of:
    0.04464609 = sum of:
      0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008711642 = score(doc=7673,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  7. Montesi, M.; Urdiciain, B.G.: Recent linguistic research into author abstracts : its value for information science (2005) 0.02 
    0.022319118 = sum of:
  0.018270312 = product of:
    0.07308125 = sum of:
      0.07308125 = weight(_text_:authors in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07308125 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
  0.004048805 = product of:
    0.00809761 = sum of:
      0.00809761 = weight(_text_:a in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00809761 = score(doc=4823,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
    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.
    Type
    a
  8. Cross, C.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬A genre analysis of scientific abstracts (2006) 0.02 
    0.021633197 = sum of:
  0.017225416 = product of:
    0.068901666 = sum of:
      0.068901666 = weight(_text_:authors in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068901666 = score(doc=5603,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
  0.0044077807 = product of:
    0.008815561 = sum of:
      0.008815561 = weight(_text_:a in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008815561 = score(doc=5603,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
    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.
    Type
    a
  9. Wheatley, A.; Armstrong, C.J.: Metadata, recall, and abstracts : can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value? (1997) 0.02 
    0.021576148 = sum of:
  0.018270312 = product of:
    0.07308125 = sum of:
      0.07308125 = weight(_text_:authors in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07308125 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
  0.0033058354 = product of:
    0.006611671 = sum of:
      0.006611671 = weight(_text_:a in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006611671 = score(doc=824,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
    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
    Type
    a
  10. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences (2009) 0.02 
    0.021576148 = sum of:
  0.018270312 = product of:
    0.07308125 = sum of:
      0.07308125 = weight(_text_:authors in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07308125 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
  0.0033058354 = product of:
    0.006611671 = sum of:
      0.006611671 = weight(_text_:a in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006611671 = score(doc=3115,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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.
    Type
    a
  11. Wang, F.L.; Yang, C.C.: ¬The impact analysis of language differences on an automatic multilingual text summarization system (2006) 0.02 
    0.018599264 = sum of:
  0.0152252605 = product of:
    0.060901042 = sum of:
      0.060901042 = weight(_text_:authors in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060901042 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0033740045 = product of:
    0.006748009 = sum of:
      0.006748009 = weight(_text_:a in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006748009 = score(doc=5049,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    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.
    Type
    a
  12. Hutchins, J.: Summarization: some problems and methods (1987) 0.00 
    0.0044077807 = product of:
  0.008815561 = sum of:
    0.008815561 = product of:
      0.017631123 = sum of:
        0.017631123 = weight(_text_:a in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017631123 = score(doc=2738,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 2738, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Informatics 9: Meaning: the frontier of informatics: proceedings of a conference. Ed.: K.P. Jones
    Type
    a
  13. Ickler, T.: Zur Textgattung 'Abstract' (1993) 0.00 
    0.0038959642 = product of:
  0.0077919285 = sum of:
    0.0077919285 = product of:
      0.015583857 = sum of:
        0.015583857 = weight(_text_:a in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015583857 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  14. Farrow, J.: All in the mind : concept analysis in indexing (1995) 0.00 
    0.0034846568 = product of:
  0.0069693136 = sum of:
    0.0069693136 = product of:
      0.013938627 = sum of:
        0.013938627 = weight(_text_:a in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013938627 = score(doc=2926,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The indexing process consists of the comprehension of the document to be indexed, followed by the production of a set of index terms. Differences between academic indexing and back-of-the-book indexing are discussed. Text comprehension is a branch of human information processing, and it is argued that the model of text comprehension and production debeloped by van Dijk and Kintsch can form the basis for a cognitive process model of indexing. Strategies for testing such a model are suggested
    Type
    a
  15. Booth, A.; O'Rouke, A.J.: ¬The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE (1997) 0.00 
    0.0034846568 = product of:
  0.0069693136 = sum of:
    0.0069693136 = product of:
      0.013938627 = sum of:
        0.013938627 = weight(_text_:a in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013938627 = score(doc=764,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Presents a structured abstract of the actual article. Outlines the debate on the value of structured abstracts and describes a research project into their use, which investigated records of cardiovascular disease downloaded from MEDLINE and tested against clinical questions derived from a survey of CD-ROM use in 3 health science libraries. It was found that structured abstracts improve precision at the expense of recall and place heavier demands on the skills of selecting fields to search within the abstract. Indicates directions for further research
    Type
    a
  16. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Content analysis : a special case of text compression (1989) 0.00 
    0.0033740045 = product of:
  0.006748009 = sum of:
    0.006748009 = product of:
      0.013496018 = sum of:
        0.013496018 = weight(_text_:a in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013496018 = score(doc=3549,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Presents a theoretical model, based on the Flower/Hayes model of expository writing, of the process involved in content analysis for abstracting and indexing.
    Type
    a
  17. Borko, H.; Chatman, S.: Criteria for acceptable abstracts : a survey of abstractors' instructions (1963) 0.00 
    0.0033400937 = product of:
  0.0066801873 = sum of:
    0.0066801873 = product of:
      0.013360375 = sum of:
        0.013360375 = weight(_text_:a in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013360375 = score(doc=687,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 687, 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=687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
    Type
    a
  18. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Maier, E.; Sigel, A.: How to implement a naturalistic model of abstracting : four core working steps of an expert abstractor (1995) 0.00 
    0.0033400937 = product of:
  0.0066801873 = sum of:
    0.0066801873 = product of:
      0.013360375 = sum of:
        0.013360375 = weight(_text_:a in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013360375 = score(doc=2930,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2930, 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=2930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    4 working steps taken from a comprehensive empirical model of expert abstracting are studied in order to prepare an explorative implementation of a simulation model. It aims at explaining the knowledge processing activities during professional summarizing. Following the case-based and holistic strategy of qualitative empirical research, the main features of the simulation system were developed by investigating in detail a small but central test case - 4 working steps where an expert abstractor discovers what the paper is about and drafts the topic sentence of the abstract
    Type
    a
  19. Armstrong, C.J.; Wheatley, A.: Writing abstracts for online databases : results of database producers' guidelines (1998) 0.00 
    0.0033400937 = product of:
  0.0066801873 = sum of:
    0.0066801873 = product of:
      0.013360375 = sum of:
        0.013360375 = weight(_text_:a in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013360375 = score(doc=3295,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  20. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬An empirical process model of abstracting (1992) 0.00 
    0.0033058354 = product of:
  0.006611671 = sum of:
    0.006611671 = product of:
      0.013223342 = sum of:
        0.013223342 = weight(_text_:a in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013223342 = score(doc=8834,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 52
  • d 22
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 68
  • m 4
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications