Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

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

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=2362,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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.

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=3610,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to argue for a conception of information literacy (IL) that goes beyond the abilities of finding information as it includes communication skills. An important issue in this is that abstractors exercise IL on a professional level. Design/methodology/approach - By stressing the importance of the fact that information literacy extends towards verbal communication the paper takes an interdisciplinary approach, the main component of which is linguistics. Findings - It is found that verbal communication and especially analytic-synthetic writing activities play an important role in information literacy at the level of everyday language use, semi-professional and professional summarising of information. The latter level characterises abstracting. Originality/value - The paper adds to the body of knowledge about information literacy in general and in connection with communication and abstracting.

Type

a

0.0022438213 = product of:
  0.0044876426 = sum of:
    0.0044876426 = product of:
      0.008975285 = sum of:
        0.008975285 = weight(_text_:a in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008975285 = score(doc=2676,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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.

Content

1. Introduction This paper reports our initial effort to develop an automatic method for parsing the discourse structure of sociology dissertation abstracts. This study is part of a broader study to develop a method for multi-document summarization. Accurate discourse parsing will make it easier to perform automatic multi-document summarization of dissertation abstracts. In a previous study, we determined that the macro-level structure of dissertation abstracts typically has five sections (Khoo et al., 2002). In this study, we treated discourse parsing as a text categorization problem - assigning each sentence in a dissertation abstract to one of the five predefined sections or categories. Decision tree induction, a machine-learning method, was applied to word tokens found in the abstracts to construct a decision tree model for the categorization purpose. Decision tree induction was selected primarily because decision tree models are easy to interpret and can be converted to rules that can be incorporated in other computer programs. A well-known decision-tree induction program, C5.0 (Quinlan, 1993), was used in this study.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=5603,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure of a small number of abstracts that have appeared in the CABI database over a number of years, during which time the authorship of the abstracts changed from CABI editorial staff to journal article authors themselves. This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology in an effort to discover whether these abstracts followed generally agreed abstracting guidelines. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted was a move analysis of the text of the abstracts. This move analysis revealed a five-move pattern: move 1 situates the research within the scientific community; move 2 introduces the research by either describing the main features of the research or presenting its purpose; move 3 describes the methodology; move 4 states the results; and move 5 draws conclusions or suggests practical applications. Findings - Thematic analysis shows that scientific abstract authors thematise their subject by referring to the discourse domain or the "real" world. Not all of the abstracts succeeded in following the guideline advice. However, there was general consistency regarding semantic organisation and thematic structure. Research limitations/implications - The research limitations were the small number of abstracts examined, from just one subject domain. Practical limitations - The practical implications are the need for abstracting services to be clearer and more prescriptive regarding how they want abstracts to be structured as the lack of formal training in abstract writing increases the risk of subjectivity and verbosity and reduces clarity in scientific abstracts. Another implication of the research are that abstracting and indexing services must ensure that they maintain abstract quality if they introduce policies of accepting author abstracts. This is important as there is probably little formal training in abstract writing for science students at present. Recommendations for further research are made. Originality/value - This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=4823,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4823, 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=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper is a review of genre analysis of author abstracts carried out in the area of English for Special Purposes (ESP) since 1990. Given the descriptive character of such analysis, it can be valuable for Information Science (IS), as it provides a picture of the variation in author abstracts, depending an the discipline, culture and language of the author, and the envisaged context. The authors claim that such knowledge can be useful for information professionals who need to revise author abstracts, or use them for other activities in the organization of knowledge, such as subject analysis and control of vocabulary. With this purpose in mind, we summarize various findings of ESP research. We describe how abstracts vary in structure, content and discourse, and how linguists explain such variations. Other factors taken into account are the stylistic and discoursal features of the abstract, lexical choices, and the possible sources of blas. In conclusion, we show how such findings can have practical and theoretical implications for IS.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=1961,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=255,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5049,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Based on the salient features of the documents, automatic text summarization systems extract the key sentences from source documents. This process supports the users in evaluating the relevance of the extracted documents returned by information retrieval systems. Because of this tool, efficient filtering can be achieved. Indirectly, these systems help to resolve the problem of information overloading. Many automatic text summarization systems have been implemented for use with different languages. It has been established that the grammatical and lexical differences between languages have a significant effect on text processing. However, the impact of the language differences on the automatic text summarization systems has not yet been investigated. The authors provide an impact analysis of language difference on automatic text summarization. It includes the effect on the extraction processes, the scoring mechanisms, the performance, and the matching of the extracted sentences, using the parallel corpus in English and Chinese as the tested object. The analysis results provide a greater understanding of language differences and promote the future development of more advanced text summarization techniques.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4446,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4446, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4446)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The technological revolution is affecting the structure, form and content of documents, reducing the effectiveness of traditional abstracts that, to some extent, are inadequate to the new documentary conditions. Aims to show the directions in which abstracting/abstracts can evolve to achieve the necessary adequacy in the new digital environments. Three researching trends are proposed: theoretical, methodological and pragmatic. Theoretically, there are some needs for expanding the document concept, reengineering abstracting and designing interdisciplinary models. Methodologically, the trend is toward the structuring, automating and qualifying of the abstracts. Pragmatically, abstracts networking, combined with alternative and complementary models, open a new and promising horizon. Automating, structuring and qualifying abstracting/abstract offer some short-term prospects for progress. Concludes that reengineering, networking and visualising would be middle-term fruitful areas of research toward the full adequacy of abstracting in the new electronic age.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Indexing and abstracting are not activities that should be looked upon as ends in themselves. It is the results of these activities that should be evaluated and this can only be done within the context of a particular database, whether in printed or machine-readable form. In this context, the indexing can be judged successful if it allows searchers to locate items they want without having to look at many they do not want. This book intended primarily as a text to be used in teaching indexing and abstracting of Library and information science. It is an immense value to all individuals and institutions involved in information retrieval and related activities, including librarians, managers of information centres and database producers.

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3115,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Detailed checklists and questionnaires have been used in the past to assess the quality of structured abstracts in the medical sciences. The aim of this article is to report the findings when a simpler checklist was used to evaluate the quality of 100 traditional abstracts published in 53 different social science journals. Most of these abstracts contained information about the aims, methods, and results of the studies. However, many did not report details about the sample sizes, ages, or sexes of the participants, or where the research was carried out. The correlation between the lengths of the abstracts and the amount of information present was 0.37 (p < .001), suggesting that word limits for abstracts may restrict the presence of key information to some extent. We conclude that authors can improve the quality of information in traditional abstracts in the social sciences by using the simple checklist provided in this article.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=807,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The literature on abstracts recommends the revision of author supplied abstracts before their inclusion in database collections. However, little guidance is given on how to carry out such revision, and few studies exist on this topic. The purpose of this research paper is to first survey 187 bibliographic databases to ascertain how many did revise abstracts, and then study the practical amendments made by one of these, i.e. LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts). Design/methodology/approach - Database policies were established by e-mail or through alternative sources, with 136 databases out of 187 exhaustively documented. Differences between 100 author-supplied abstracts and the corresponding 100 LISA amended abstracts were classified into sentence-level and beyond sentence-level categories, and then as additions, deletions and rephrasing of text. Findings - Revision of author abstracts was carried out by 66 databases, but in just 32 cases did it imply more than spelling, shortening of length and formula representation. In LISA, amendments were often non-systematic and inconsistent, but still pointed to significant aspects which were discussed. Originality/value - Amendments made by LISA editors are important in multi- and inter-disciplinary research, since they tend to clarify certain aspects such as terminology, and suggest that abstracts should not always be considered as substitutes for the original document. From this point-of-view, the revision of abstracts can be considered as an important factor in enhancing a database's quality.

Type

a

0.0011717974 = product of:
  0.0023435948 = sum of:
    0.0023435948 = product of:
      0.0046871896 = sum of:
        0.0046871896 = weight(_text_:a in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046871896 = score(doc=2917,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Was ein Abstract (im Folgenden synonym mit Referat oder Kurzreferat gebraucht) ist, legt das American National Standards Institute in einer Weise fest, die sicherlich von den meisten Fachleuten akzeptiert werden kann: "An abstract is defined as an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document"; fast genauso die deutsche Norm DIN 1426: "Das Kurzreferat gibt kurz und klar den Inhalt des Dokuments wieder." Abstracts gehören zum wissenschaftlichen Alltag. Weitgehend allen Publikationen, zumindest in den naturwissenschaftlichen, technischen, informationsbezogenen oder medizinischen Bereichen, gehen Abstracts voran, "prefe-rably prepared by its author(s) for publication with it". Es gibt wohl keinen Wissenschaftler, der nicht irgendwann einmal ein Abstract geschrieben hätte. Gehört das Erstellen von Abstracts dann überhaupt zur dokumentarischen bzw informationswissenschaftlichen Methodenlehre, wenn es jeder kann? Was macht den informationellen Mehrwert aus, der durch Expertenreferate gegenüber Laienreferaten erzeugt wird? Dies ist nicht so leicht zu beantworten, zumal geeignete Bewertungsverfahren fehlen, die Qualität von Abstracts vergleichend "objektiv" zu messen. Abstracts werden in erheblichem Umfang von Informationsspezialisten erstellt, oft unter der Annahme, dass Autoren selber dafür weniger geeignet sind. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, was wir über Abstracts und Abstracting wissen. Ein besonders gelungenes Abstract ist zuweilen klarer als der Ursprungstext selber, darf aber nicht mehr Information als dieser enthalten: "Good abstracts are highly structured, concise, and coherent, and are the result of a thorough analysis of the content of the abstracted materials. Abstracts may be more readable than the basis documents, but because of size constraints they rarely equal and never surpass the information content of the basic document". Dies ist verständlich, denn ein "Abstract" ist zunächst nichts anderes als ein Ergebnis des Vorgangs einer Abstraktion. Ohne uns zu sehr in die philosophischen Hintergründe der Abstraktion zu verlieren, besteht diese doch "in der Vernachlässigung von bestimmten Vorstellungsbzw. Begriffsinhalten, von welchen zugunsten anderer Teilinhalte abgesehen, abstrahiert' wird. Sie ist stets verbunden mit einer Fixierung von (interessierenden) Merkmalen durch die aktive Aufmerksamkeit, die unter einem bestimmten pragmatischen Gesichtspunkt als wesentlich' für einen vorgestellten bzw für einen unter einen Begriff fallenden Gegenstand (oder eine Mehrheit von Gegenständen) betrachtet werden". Abstracts reduzieren weniger Begriffsinhalte, sondern Texte bezüglich ihres proportionalen Gehaltes. Borko/ Bernier haben dies sogar quantifiziert; sie schätzen den Reduktionsfaktor auf 1:10 bis 1:12

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4913, 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=4913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 57(2006) no.1, S.144-145 (H. Saggion): "... This volume is a very valuable source of information for not only students and professionals in library and information science but also for individuals and institutions involved in knowledge management and organization activities. Because of its broad coverage of the information science topic, teachers will find the contents of this book useful for courses in the areas of information technology, digital as well as traditional libraries, and information science in general."

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

6.765375E-4 = product of:
  0.001353075 = sum of:
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00270615 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a