Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

0.02903467 = product of:
  0.05806934 = sum of:
    0.026041372 = weight(_text_:for in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026041372 = score(doc=3061,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29336601 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
    0.032027967 = product of:
      0.064055935 = sum of:
        0.064055935 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064055935 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

Source

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

0.02754241 = product of:
  0.05508482 = sum of:
    0.02946245 = weight(_text_:for in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02946245 = score(doc=2832,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.33190575 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
    0.025622372 = product of:
      0.051244743 = sum of:
        0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051244743 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = 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(2/4)

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

0.020656807 = product of:
  0.041313615 = sum of:
    0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022096837 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.0191766 = product of:
  0.0383532 = sum of:
    0.019136423 = weight(_text_:for in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019136423 = score(doc=7244,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.21557912 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = 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(2/4)

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

0.0191766 = product of:
  0.0383532 = sum of:
    0.019136423 = weight(_text_:for in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019136423 = score(doc=2421,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.21557912 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = 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(2/4)

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

0.0159805 = product of:
  0.031961 = sum of:
    0.01594702 = weight(_text_:for in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01594702 = score(doc=7673,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17964928 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
    0.016013984 = product of:
      0.032027967 = sum of:
        0.032027967 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032027967 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.0067657465 = product of:
  0.027062986 = sum of:
    0.027062986 = weight(_text_:for in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027062986 = score(doc=4823,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.3048749 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.006510343 = product of:
  0.026041372 = sum of:
    0.026041372 = weight(_text_:for in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026041372 = score(doc=282,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29336601 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews, enlarges upon and refines the author's three-stage analytical reading method (retrieval reading, creative reading and critical reading) for the preparation of informative and indicative literature abstracts

Content

1st ed.: Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information 1982

0.0064449105 = product of:
  0.025779642 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=687,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0064449105 = product of:
  0.025779642 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=701,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Comments on the value of abstracts or summary notes to information available online via the Internet and WWW and concludes that automated abstracting techniques would be highly useful if routinely applied to cataloguing or metadata for Internet documents and documents in other databases. Information seekers need external summary information to assess content and value of retrieved documents. Examines traditional models for writers, in library audiovisual cataloguing, periodical databases and archival work, along with innovative new model databases featuring robust cataloguing summaries. Notes recent developments in automated techniques, computational research, and machine summarization of digital images. Recommendations are made for future designers of cataloguing and metadata standards

0.0064449105 = product of:
  0.025779642 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.10, S.845-854

0.0063788076 = product of:
  0.02551523 = sum of:
    0.02551523 = weight(_text_:for in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02551523 = score(doc=2536,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.28743884 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on a comparison of the "content categories" listed in the ANSI/ISO abstracting standards to actual content found in abstracts from the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. The preliminary findings question the fundamental concept underlying these standards, namely, that any one set of standards and generalized instructions can describe and elicit the optimal configuration for abstracts from all subject areas

0.0061762533 = product of:
  0.024705013 = sum of:
    0.024705013 = weight(_text_:for in 8867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024705013 = score(doc=8867,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.27831143 = fieldWeight in 8867, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8867)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As a result of the transition to full-text storage, multimedia and networking, information systems are becoming more efficient but at the same time more difficult to use, in particular because users are confronted with information volumes that increasingly exceed individual processing capacities. Consequently, there is an increase in the demand for user aids such as summarising techniques. Against this background, the interdisciplinary Dagstuhl Seminar 'Summarising Text for Intelligent Communication' (Dec. 1993) outlined the academic state of the art with regard to summarising (abstracting) and proposed future directions for research and system development. Research is currently shifting its attention from text summarising to summarising states of affairs. Recycling solutions are put forward in order to satisfy short-term needs for summarisation products. In the medium and long term, it is necessary to devise concepts and methods of intelligent summarising which have a better formal and empirical grounding and a more modular organisation

0.005638122 = product of:
  0.022552488 = sum of:
    0.022552488 = weight(_text_:for in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022552488 = score(doc=612,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.2540624 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.291-306

0.0055814567 = product of:
  0.022325827 = sum of:
    0.022325827 = weight(_text_:for in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022325827 = score(doc=3295,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.25150898 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0052082743 = product of:
  0.020833097 = sum of:
    0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020833097 = score(doc=5026,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Abstracts enable users to judge the relevance of articles, provide a summary and may be a substitute for the original document. Defines abstracts and considers who they are written be according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other sources. Distinguishes between indicative and informative abstracts. Informative abstracts are preferred by ANSI and ERIC. Discusses the content and procedures for abstracting, writing style, tests of quality and readability and informativeness. Presents statistics analyzing abstracts from 3 general interest databases and on abstract length and type

0.0052082743 = product of:
  0.020833097 = sum of:
    0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 1790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020833097 = score(doc=1790,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 1790, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1790)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.3, S.225-234

0.0052082743 = product of:
  0.020833097 = sum of:
    0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020833097 = score(doc=2926,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0052082743 = product of:
  0.020833097 = sum of:
    0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020833097 = score(doc=1007,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews, enlarges upon and refines the author's three-stage analytical reading method (retrieval reading, creative reading and critical reading) for the preparation of informative and indicative literature abstracts

Content

1st ed.: Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information 1982

0.0052082743 = product of:
  0.020833097 = sum of:
    0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020833097 = score(doc=2749,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Structured abstracts have now become widespread in medical research journals. Considers whether or not such structured abstracts can be used effectively in social science journals. Reviews a a selection of studies to see if structured abstracts written for social science journals are more informative, easier to read and easier to search than their traditional equivalents. Results suggest that structured abstracts are appropriate for social science journals. Editors of social science journals should consider adopting structured abstracts