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
    0.037059225 = product of:
      0.07411845 = sum of:
        0.07411845 = sum of:
          0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.011717974 = score(doc=3061,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
          0.06240048 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.06240048 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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
    0.02964738 = product of:
      0.05929476 = sum of:
        0.05929476 = sum of:
          0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009374379 = score(doc=2832,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
          0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04992038 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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) 0.02
    0.022779368 = product of:
      0.045558736 = sum of:
        0.045558736 = sum of:
          0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008118451 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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) 0.02
    0.022235535 = product of:
      0.04447107 = sum of:
        0.04447107 = sum of:
          0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.007030784 = score(doc=7244,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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) 0.02
    0.022235535 = product of:
      0.04447107 = sum of:
        0.04447107 = sum of:
          0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.007030784 = score(doc=2421,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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
    0.01938208 = product of:
      0.03876416 = sum of:
        0.03876416 = sum of:
          0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0075639198 = score(doc=7673,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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. Hutchins, J.: Summarization: some problems and methods (1987) 0.00
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = product of:
          0.015308296 = sum of:
            0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015308296 = score(doc=2738,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  8. Ickler, T.: Zur Textgattung 'Abstract' (1993) 0.00
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = product of:
          0.01353075 = sum of:
            0.01353075 = weight(_text_:a in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01353075 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  9. Farrow, J.: All in the mind : concept analysis in indexing (1995) 0.00
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = product of:
          0.012102271 = sum of:
            0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012102271 = score(doc=2926,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  10. Booth, A.; O'Rouke, A.J.: ¬The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE (1997) 0.00
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = product of:
          0.012102271 = sum of:
            0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012102271 = score(doc=764,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  11. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Content analysis : a special case of text compression (1989) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=3549,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  12. Borko, H.; Chatman, S.: Criteria for acceptable abstracts : a survey of abstractors' instructions (1963) 0.00
    0.0029000505 = product of:
      0.005800101 = sum of:
        0.005800101 = product of:
          0.011600202 = sum of:
            0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011600202 = score(doc=687,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  13. 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
    0.0029000505 = product of:
      0.005800101 = sum of:
        0.005800101 = product of:
          0.011600202 = sum of:
            0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011600202 = score(doc=2930,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  14. Armstrong, C.J.; Wheatley, A.: Writing abstracts for online databases : results of database producers' guidelines (1998) 0.00
    0.0029000505 = product of:
      0.005800101 = sum of:
        0.005800101 = product of:
          0.011600202 = sum of:
            0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011600202 = score(doc=3295,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  15. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬An empirical process model of abstracting (1992) 0.00
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = product of:
          0.011481222 = sum of:
            0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011481222 = score(doc=8834,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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
  16. Bienert, F.: Probleme der Annotation in der Öffentlichen Bibliothek (1971) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  17. Fidel, R.: Writing abstracts for free-text searching (1986) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=684,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A survey of abstracting policies by producers of bibliographical databases examined abstracting guidelines which aim to enhance free- text retrieval. Of the 123 database policies examined, fifty-seven (46 per cent) included such instructions. Editors consider contents of abstracts and their language as a primary factor in retrieval enhancement. Most recommend that once abstractors decide which concepts to include in abstracts and in which form to represent them, these terms should be co-ordinated with index terms assigned from a controlled vocabulary. Guidelines about the type of abstracts, i.e., informative or indicative, and about their length are not affected by the capability of free-text retrieval
    Type
    a
  18. Harbeck, R.; Lutterbeck, E.: Inhaltsangaben in der Dokumentation (1968) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  19. Liebhart, S.: Für eine dreigeteilte, variable Allzwecknotation (1971) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  20. Molina, M.P.: Documentary abstracting : toward a methodological approach (1995) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 1790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=1790,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1790, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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
    Type
    a

Languages

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

Types

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

Classifications