Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Sauperl, A.; Klasinc, J.; Luzar, S.: Components of abstracts : logical structure of scholarly abstracts in pharmacology, sociology, and linguistics and literature (2008) 0.01
    0.009385394 = product of:
      0.07508315 = sum of:
        0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07508315 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    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.
  2. Bakewell, K.G.B.; Rowland, G.: Indexing and abstracting (1993) 0.01
    0.00576781 = product of:
      0.04614248 = sum of:
        0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04614248 = score(doc=5540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 5540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5540)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Source
    British librarianship and information work 1986-1990. Ed. by D. Bromley and A.M. Allott
  3. Jizba, L.: Reflections on summarizing and abstracting : implications for Internet Web documents, and standardized library cataloging databases (1997) 0.01
    0.005046834 = product of:
      0.04037467 = sum of:
        0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04037467 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    Comments on the value of abstracts or summary notes to information available online via the Internet and WWW and concludes that automated abstracting techniques would be highly useful if routinely applied to cataloguing or metadata for Internet documents and documents in other databases. Information seekers need external summary information to assess content and value of retrieved documents. Examines traditional models for writers, in library audiovisual cataloguing, periodical databases and archival work, along with innovative new model databases featuring robust cataloguing summaries. Notes recent developments in automated techniques, computational research, and machine summarization of digital images. Recommendations are made for future designers of cataloguing and metadata standards
  4. Koltay, T.: Abstracts and abstracting : a genre and set of skills for the twenty-first century (2010) 0.00
    0.0036048815 = product of:
      0.028839052 = sum of:
        0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 4125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028839052 = score(doc=4125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 4125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4125)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    Despite their changing role, abstracts remain useful in the digital world. Aimed at both information professionals and researchers who work and publish in different fields, this book summarizes the most important and up-to-date theory of abstracting, as well as giving advice and examples for the practice of writing different kinds of abstracts. The book discusses the length, the functions and basic structure of abstracts. A new approach is outlined on the questions of informative and indicative abstracts. The abstractors' personality, their linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge and skills are also discussed with special attention. The process of abstracting, its steps and models, as well as recipient's role are treated with special distinction. Abstracting is presented as an aimed (purported) understanding of the original text, its interpretation and then a special projection of the information deemed to be worth of abstracting into a new text.Despite the relatively large number of textbooks on the topic there is no up-to-date book on abstracting in the English language. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of the topic, the proposed book contains novel views - especially on informative and indicative abstracts. The discussion is based on an interdisciplinary approach, blending the methods of library and information science and linguistics. The book strives to a synthesis of theory and practice. The synthesis is based on a large and existing body of knowledge which, however, is often characterised by misleading terminology and flawed beliefs.
  5. Wilson, M.J.; Wilson, M.L.: ¬A comparison of techniques for measuring sensemaking and learning within participant-generated summaries (2013) 0.00
    0.0036048815 = product of:
      0.028839052 = sum of:
        0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028839052 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    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.
  6. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.00
    0.00328138 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = product of:
          0.05250208 = sum of:
            0.05250208 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05250208 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03875087 = 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)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Date
    27. 1.1996 18:22:06
  7. Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988) 0.00
    0.002625104 = product of:
      0.021000832 = sum of:
        0.021000832 = product of:
          0.042001665 = sum of:
            0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042001665 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03875087 = 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)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Source
    Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308
  8. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.00
    0.0019688278 = product of:
      0.015750622 = sum of:
        0.015750622 = product of:
          0.031501245 = sum of:
            0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031501245 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03875087 = 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)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
  9. Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996) 0.00
    0.0019688278 = product of:
      0.015750622 = sum of:
        0.015750622 = product of:
          0.031501245 = sum of:
            0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031501245 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03875087 = 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)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
  10. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.00
    0.0019688278 = product of:
      0.015750622 = sum of:
        0.015750622 = product of:
          0.031501245 = sum of:
            0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031501245 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03875087 = 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)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  11. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.00
    0.00164069 = product of:
      0.01312552 = sum of:
        0.01312552 = product of:
          0.02625104 = sum of:
            0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02625104 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03875087 = 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)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356