Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.053175673 = product of:
  0.106351346 = sum of:
    0.106351346 = sum of:
      0.035324864 = weight(_text_:2 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035324864 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.27285388 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
      0.07102648 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07102648 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = 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)

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

Source

Journal of education for library and information science. 36(1995) no.2, S.170-173

0.03750382 = product of:
  0.07500764 = sum of:
    0.07500764 = sum of:
      0.0394944 = weight(_text_:2 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0394944 = score(doc=7673,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.3050599 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
      0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03551324 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = 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

0.031905405 = product of:
  0.06381081 = sum of:
    0.06381081 = sum of:
      0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021194918 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
      0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04261589 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = 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

0.017662432 = product of:
  0.035324864 = sum of:
    0.035324864 = product of:
      0.07064973 = sum of:
        0.07064973 = weight(_text_:2 in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07064973 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.54570776 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Fachsprache. 15(1993) H.1/2, S.44-53

0.0142052965 = product of:
  0.028410593 = sum of:
    0.028410593 = product of:
      0.056821186 = sum of:
        0.056821186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056821186 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = 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

0.010653973 = product of:
  0.021307945 = sum of:
    0.021307945 = product of:
      0.04261589 = sum of:
        0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04261589 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = 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

0.010653973 = product of:
  0.021307945 = sum of:
    0.021307945 = product of:
      0.04261589 = sum of:
        0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04261589 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = 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

0.00999138 = product of:
  0.01998276 = sum of:
    0.01998276 = product of:
      0.03996552 = sum of:
        0.03996552 = weight(_text_:2 in 6917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03996552 = score(doc=6917,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.30869892 = fieldWeight in 6917, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 1.1996 17:45:35

Source

Documentation et bibliothèques. 42(1996) no.2, S.55-63

0.007064973 = product of:
  0.014129946 = sum of:
    0.014129946 = product of:
      0.028259892 = sum of:
        0.028259892 = weight(_text_:2 in 1790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028259892 = score(doc=1790,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2182831 = fieldWeight in 1790, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the general abstracting process (GAP), there are 2 types of data: textual, within a particular framed trilogy (surface, deep, and rhetoric); and documentary (abstractor, means of production, and user demands). Proposes its development, the use of the following disciplines, among others: linguistics (structural, tranformational, and textual), logic (formal and fuzzy), and psychology (cognitive). The model for that textual transformation is based on a system of combined strategies with 4 key stages: reading understanding, selection, interpretation, and synthesis

0.007064973 = product of:
  0.014129946 = sum of:
    0.014129946 = product of:
      0.028259892 = sum of:
        0.028259892 = weight(_text_:2 in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028259892 = score(doc=2926,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2182831 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 1.1996 14:39:08

0.007064973 = product of:
  0.014129946 = sum of:
    0.014129946 = product of:
      0.028259892 = sum of:
        0.028259892 = weight(_text_:2 in 317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028259892 = score(doc=317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2182831 = fieldWeight in 317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Isbn

0-87287-677-2

0.006244613 = product of:
  0.012489226 = sum of:
    0.012489226 = product of:
      0.024978451 = sum of:
        0.024978451 = weight(_text_:2 in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024978451 = score(doc=1325,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19293682 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous research assessing the effectiveness of structured abstracts has been limited in two respects. First, when comparing structured abstracts with traditional ones, investigators usually have rewritten the original abstracts, and thus confounded changes in the layout with changes in both the wording and the content of the text. Second, investigators have not always included the title of the article together with the abstract when asking participants to judge the quality of the abstracts, yet titles alert readers to the meaning of the materials that follow. The aim of this research was to redress these limitations. Three studies were carried out. Four versions of each of four abstracts were prepared. These versions consisted of structured/traditional abstracts matched in content, with and without titles. In Study 1, 64 undergraduates each rated one of these abstracts on six separate rating scales. In Study 2, 225 academics and research workers rated the abstracts electronically, and in Study 3, 252 information scientists did likewise. In Studies 1 and 3, the respondents rated the structured abstracts significantly more favorably than they did the traditional ones, but the presence or absence of titles had no effect on their judgments. In Study 2, no main effects were observed for structure or for titles. The layout of the text, together with the subheadings, contributed to the higher ratings of effectiveness for structured abstracts, but the presence or absence of titles had no clear effects in these experimental studies. It is likely that this spatial organization, together with the greater amount of information normally provided in structured abstracts, explains why structured abstracts are generally judged to be superior to traditional ones.

0.006244613 = product of:
  0.012489226 = sum of:
    0.012489226 = product of:
      0.024978451 = sum of:
        0.024978451 = weight(_text_:2 in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024978451 = score(doc=2362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19293682 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many writers of structured abstracts spend a good deal of time revising and polishing their texts - but is it worth it? Do readers notice the difference? In this paper we report three studies of readers using rating scales to judge (electronically) the clarity of an original and a revised abstract, both as a whole and in its constituent parts. In Study 1, with approximately 250 academics and research workers, we found some significant differences in favor of the revised abstract, but in Study 2, with approximately 210 information scientists, we found no significant effects. Pooling the data from Studies 1 and 2, however, in Study 3, led to significant differences at a higher probability level between the perception of the original and revised abstract as a whole and between the same components as found in Study 1. These results thus indicate that the revised abstract as a whole, as well as certain specific components of it, were judged significantly clearer than the original one. In short, the results of these experiments show that readers can and do perceive differences between original and revised texts - sometimes - and that therefore these efforts are worth the time and effort.

0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=2930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 2930, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 1.1996 14:46:02

0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=3740,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 1.1996 14:46:02

0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=430,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Malaysian journal of library and information science. 2(1997) no.1, S.97-106

0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 1(1997) no.2, S.15-39

0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 44(2007) nos.1/2, S.95-111

0.0061184466 = product of:
  0.012236893 = sum of:
    0.012236893 = product of:
      0.024473786 = sum of:
        0.024473786 = weight(_text_:2 in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024473786 = score(doc=2676,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.18903872 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigated an approach to automatic discourse parsing of sociology dissertation abstracts as a sentence categorization task. Decision tree induction was used for the automatic categorization. Three models were developed. Model 1 made use of word tokens found in the sentences. Model 2 made use of both word tokens and sentence position in the abstract. In addition to the attributes used in Model 2, Model 3 also considered information regarding the presence of indicator words in surrounding sentences. Model 3 obtained the highest accuracy rate of 74.5 % when applied to a test sample, compared to 71.6% for Model 2 and 60.8% for Model 1. The results indicated that information about sentence position can substantially increase the accuracy of categorization, and indicator words in earlier sentences (before the sentence being processed) also contribute to the categorization accuracy.

0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Signature

79 BCA 129-1 (75 BCA 129-2)