Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

McIntosh, N.: Structured abstracts and information transfer (1994) 0.00
```
0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=728,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted by the European Society of Paediatric Research (ESPR), to determine whether the information content of structured medical abstracts is greater than abstracts with traditional format and whether the efficacy of peer review is improved by the use of structured medical abstracts. The sample studied comprised the abstracts of papers submitted for the ESPR annual meeting and each abstract was assessed by a research worker by a research worker for information content by referring to a list of criteria. The words in each abstract were counted to obtain the information density of each and the abstracts were evaluated according to whether they were in an unstructured format, a semistructured format, or a more fully structured format. Although there was no significant difference in the scientific score of the scientific information density of the different formats there was significantly more information in the fully structured format. When the abstracts were resubmitted in structured format, there was always a highly significant increase in the information content
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Structured abstracts in the social sciences : presentation, readability and recall (1995) 0.00
```
0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Reports results of a study to explore the possibilities of extending the use of structured abstracts (which use subheadings such as background, aims, participants method, results, conclusions) of the type often found in biomedical periodicals; to test whether or not such structured abstracts are more easily searched, comprehended and recalled than abstracts set in the traditional manner; and to examine readers' preferences for different typographic settings for structured abstracts. Results indicated: that it is possible to produce structured abstracts for periodical articles in the social sciences; and that such abstracts may be easier to read, search and recall than abstracts presented in the traditional manner. Suggests that abstracts use 6 subheadings (background, aims, method, results, conclusions, and, optionally, comment) and recommends that these subheadings are conveyed in bold capital letters and, ideally, set apart from the main text by printer's rules

Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors