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
