Search (80 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Reischer, J.; Lottes, D.; Meier, F.; Stirner, M.: Evaluation von Summarizing-Systemen : Kommerzielle und freie Systeme im Vergleich (2010) 0.04 
    0.04290488 = product of:
  0.07150813 = sum of:
    0.0036107479 = weight(_text_:a in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036107479 = score(doc=492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
    0.029119128 = weight(_text_:u in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029119128 = score(doc=492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
    0.038778257 = weight(_text_:j in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038778257 = score(doc=492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.39718705 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Source
    Information und Wissen: global, sozial und frei? Proceedings des 12. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2011) ; Hildesheim, 9. - 11. März 2011. Hrsg.: J. Griesbaum, T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker
    Type
    a
  2. Hahn, U.; Reimer, U.: Informationslinguistische Konzepte der Volltextverarbeitung in TOPIC (1983) 0.03 
    0.03135399 = product of:
  0.07838497 = sum of:
    0.0063188085 = weight(_text_:a in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063188085 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 450, 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=450)
    0.072066166 = weight(_text_:u in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072066166 = score(doc=450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.7162847 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Type
    a
  3. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.03 
    0.02775786 = product of:
  0.0462631 = sum of:
    0.004690499 = weight(_text_:a in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004690499 = score(doc=2421,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.029083695 = weight(_text_:j in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029083695 = score(doc=2421,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
    0.012488906 = product of:
      0.024977813 = sum of:
        0.024977813 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024977813 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10759774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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
  4. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Kognitive Modellierung des Abstracting (1991) 0.03 
    0.02687485 = product of:
  0.06718712 = sum of:
    0.005416122 = weight(_text_:a in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005416122 = score(doc=23,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
    0.061771 = weight(_text_:u in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061771 = score(doc=23,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.6139583 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Deutscher Dokumentartag 1990. 1. Deutsch-deutscher Dokumentartag, 25.-27.9.90, Fulda. Proceedings. Hrsg. W. Neubauer u. U. Schneider-Briehn
    Type
    a
  5. Hutchins, J.: Summarization: some problems and methods (1987) 0.03 
    0.02602139 = product of:
  0.06505347 = sum of:
    0.010212737 = weight(_text_:a in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010212737 = score(doc=2738,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.054840736 = weight(_text_:j in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054840736 = score(doc=2738,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 2738, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2738)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Informatics 9: Meaning: the frontier of informatics: proceedings of a conference. Ed.: K.P. Jones
    Type
    a
  6. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.02 
    0.023082184 = product of:
  0.038470306 = sum of:
    0.005416122 = weight(_text_:a in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005416122 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.020565277 = weight(_text_:j in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020565277 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.012488906 = product of:
      0.024977813 = sum of:
        0.024977813 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024977813 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10759774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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
  7. Hartley, J.: Do structured abstracts take more space? : And does it matter? (2002) 0.02 
    0.021721782 = product of:
  0.054304454 = sum of:
    0.0063188085 = weight(_text_:a in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063188085 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.047985647 = weight(_text_:j in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047985647 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.4914939 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Type
    a
  8. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬An empirical process model of abstracting (1992) 0.02 
    0.0205353 = product of:
  0.051338248 = sum of:
    0.0076595526 = weight(_text_:a in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076595526 = score(doc=8834,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.043678693 = weight(_text_:u in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043678693 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 8834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8834)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  9. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.02 
    0.019554798 = product of:
  0.032591328 = sum of:
    0.005046174 = weight(_text_:a in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005046174 = score(doc=7673,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.01713773 = weight(_text_:j in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01713773 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
    0.010407423 = product of:
      0.020814845 = sum of:
        0.020814845 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020814845 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10759774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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
  10. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1998) 0.02 
    0.016961848 = product of:
  0.04240462 = sum of:
    0.021839347 = weight(_text_:u in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021839347 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
    0.020565277 = weight(_text_:j in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020565277 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIS 50(1999) no.8, S.728-730 (J.-E. Mai); Indexer 21(1999) no.3, S.148 (P.F. Booth); Managing information 6(1999) no.1, S.48 (S.T. Clarke); Electronic library 17(1999) no.3, S.193 (F. Parry)
    Theme
    Grundlagen u. Einführungen: Allgemeine Literatur
  11. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences (2009) 0.02 
    0.016392509 = product of:
  0.027320847 = sum of:
    0.0029257927 = product of:
      0.026332134 = sum of:
        0.026332134 = weight(_text_:p in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026332134 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11047626 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    0.0038297763 = weight(_text_:a in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038297763 = score(doc=3115,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.020565277 = weight(_text_:j in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020565277 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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
  12. Sauperl, A.; Klasinc, J.; Luzar, S.: Components of abstracts : logical structure of scholarly abstracts in pharmacology, sociology, and linguistics and literature (2008) 0.02 
    0.015059547 = product of:
  0.025099244 = sum of:
    0.00344808 = product of:
      0.03103272 = sum of:
        0.03103272 = weight(_text_:p in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03103272 = score(doc=1961,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11047626 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = queryNorm
            0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    0.0045134346 = weight(_text_:a in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045134346 = score(doc=1961,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.01713773 = weight(_text_:j in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01713773 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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
  13. Farrow, J.: All in the mind : concept analysis in indexing (1995) 0.01 
    0.014197699 = product of:
  0.035494246 = sum of:
    0.0080738785 = weight(_text_:a in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0080738785 = score(doc=2926,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.027420368 = weight(_text_:j in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027420368 = score(doc=2926,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  14. Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998) 0.01 
    0.013856745 = product of:
  0.034641862 = sum of:
    0.0072214957 = weight(_text_:a in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072214957 = score(doc=2999,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2999, 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=2999)
    0.027420368 = weight(_text_:j in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027420368 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to consider whether or not structured abstracts can be used efectively in non medical science periodicals. Reviews a selection of studies on structured abstracts from the medical and psychological literature, presents examples of structured abstracts published in non medical science periodicals and considers how original abstracts might be written in a structured form for these periodicals. Concludes that, in light of these example studies, editors of these periodicals should consider the value of adopting structured abstracts
    Type
    a
  15. Koblitz, J.: Methoden des Referierens von Dokumenten (1964) 0.01 
    0.013710185 = product of:
  0.06855092 = sum of:
    0.06855092 = weight(_text_:j in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06855092 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.70213413 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  16. Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? (1997) 0.01 
    0.013469747 = product of:
  0.033674367 = sum of:
    0.006253999 = weight(_text_:a in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006253999 = score(doc=2749,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2749, 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=2749)
    0.027420368 = weight(_text_:j in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027420368 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  17. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.01 
    0.011452938 = product of:
  0.028632345 = sum of:
    0.007817499 = weight(_text_:a in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007817499 = score(doc=3061,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.020814845 = product of:
      0.04162969 = sum of:
        0.04162969 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04162969 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10759774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  18. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (2003) 0.01 
    0.009818963 = product of:
  0.024547407 = sum of:
    0.002708061 = weight(_text_:a in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002708061 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.021839347 = weight(_text_:u in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021839347 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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."
    Theme
    Grundlagen u. Einführungen: Allgemeine Literatur
  19. Hahn, U.: Abstracting - Textzusammenfassung (2023) 0.01 
    0.009818963 = product of:
  0.024547407 = sum of:
    0.002708061 = weight(_text_:a in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002708061 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 786, 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=786)
    0.021839347 = weight(_text_:u in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021839347 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Type
    a
  20. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008) 0.01 
    0.0094082765 = product of:
  0.023520691 = sum of:
    0.006382961 = weight(_text_:a in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006382961 = score(doc=2362,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.01713773 = weight(_text_:j in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01713773 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 56
  • d 23
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 68
  • m 9
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications