-
Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006)
0.05
0.04610036 = product of:
0.09220072 = sum of:
0.09220072 = sum of:
0.049601603 = weight(_text_:j in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049601603 = score(doc=2421,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
0.042599116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042599116 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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)
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.04
0.038836375 = product of:
0.07767275 = sum of:
0.07767275 = sum of:
0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03507363 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
0.042599116 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042599116 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences (2009)
0.04
0.035585865 = sum of:
0.018049048 = product of:
0.07219619 = sum of:
0.07219619 = weight(_text_:authors in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07219619 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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)
0.017536815 = product of:
0.03507363 = sum of:
0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03507363 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, 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.
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.03
0.032363646 = product of:
0.06472729 = sum of:
0.06472729 = sum of:
0.029228024 = weight(_text_:j in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029228024 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
0.035499264 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035499264 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
-
Koblitz, J.: Methoden des Referierens von Dokumenten (1964)
0.03
0.029228024 = product of:
0.05845605 = sum of:
0.05845605 = product of:
0.1169121 = sum of:
0.1169121 = weight(_text_:j in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1169121 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.70213413 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Hutchins, J.: Summarization: some problems and methods (1987)
0.02
0.02338242 = product of:
0.04676484 = sum of:
0.04676484 = product of:
0.09352968 = sum of:
0.09352968 = weight(_text_:j in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09352968 = score(doc=2738,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 2738, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2738)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Hartley, J.: Do structured abstracts take more space? : And does it matter? (2002)
0.02
0.020459617 = product of:
0.040919233 = sum of:
0.040919233 = product of:
0.081838466 = sum of:
0.081838466 = weight(_text_:j in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.081838466 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.4914939 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995)
0.02
0.017749632 = product of:
0.035499264 = sum of:
0.035499264 = product of:
0.07099853 = sum of:
0.07099853 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07099853 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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
-
Reischer, J.; Lottes, D.; Meier, F.; Stirner, M.: Evaluation von Summarizing-Systemen : Kommerzielle und freie Systeme im Vergleich (2010)
0.02
0.016533867 = product of:
0.033067733 = sum of:
0.033067733 = product of:
0.066135466 = sum of:
0.066135466 = weight(_text_:j in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066135466 = score(doc=492,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.39718705 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information und Wissen: global, sozial und frei? Proceedings des 12. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2011) ; Hildesheim, 9. - 11. März 2011. Hrsg.: J. Griesbaum, T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker
-
Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988)
0.01
0.014199706 = product of:
0.028399412 = sum of:
0.028399412 = product of:
0.056798823 = sum of:
0.056798823 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056798823 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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
-
Farrow, J.: All in the mind : concept analysis in indexing (1995)
0.01
0.01169121 = product of:
0.02338242 = sum of:
0.02338242 = product of:
0.04676484 = sum of:
0.04676484 = weight(_text_:j in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04676484 = score(doc=2926,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? (1997)
0.01
0.01169121 = product of:
0.02338242 = sum of:
0.02338242 = product of:
0.04676484 = sum of:
0.04676484 = weight(_text_:j in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04676484 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998)
0.01
0.01169121 = product of:
0.02338242 = sum of:
0.02338242 = product of:
0.04676484 = sum of:
0.04676484 = weight(_text_:j in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04676484 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996)
0.01
0.010649779 = product of:
0.021299558 = sum of:
0.021299558 = product of:
0.042599116 = sum of:
0.042599116 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042599116 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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
-
Wheatley, A.; Armstrong, C.J.: Metadata, recall, and abstracts : can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value? (1997)
0.01
0.009024524 = product of:
0.018049048 = sum of:
0.018049048 = product of:
0.07219619 = sum of:
0.07219619 = weight(_text_:authors in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07219619 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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
-
Montesi, M.; Urdiciain, B.G.: Recent linguistic research into author abstracts : its value for information science (2005)
0.01
0.009024524 = product of:
0.018049048 = sum of:
0.018049048 = product of:
0.07219619 = sum of:
0.07219619 = weight(_text_:authors in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07219619 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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.
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Structured abstracts in the social sciences : presentation, readability and recall (1995)
0.01
0.008768408 = product of:
0.017536815 = sum of:
0.017536815 = product of:
0.03507363 = sum of:
0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03507363 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1998)
0.01
0.008768408 = product of:
0.017536815 = sum of:
0.017536815 = product of:
0.03507363 = sum of:
0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03507363 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: JASIS 50(1999) no.8, S.728-730 (J.-E. Mai); Indexer 21(1999) no.3, S.148 (P.F. Booth); Managing information 6(1999) no.1, S.48 (S.T. Clarke); Electronic library 17(1999) no.3, S.193 (F. Parry)
-
Cross, C.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬A genre analysis of scientific abstracts (2006)
0.01
0.008508404 = product of:
0.017016808 = sum of:
0.017016808 = product of:
0.06806723 = sum of:
0.06806723 = weight(_text_:authors in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06806723 = score(doc=5603,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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.
-
Wang, F.L.; Yang, C.C.: ¬The impact analysis of language differences on an automatic multilingual text summarization system (2006)
0.01
0.0075204372 = product of:
0.0150408745 = sum of:
0.0150408745 = product of:
0.060163498 = sum of:
0.060163498 = weight(_text_:authors in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060163498 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052402776 = 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)
0.5 = 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.
