Search (79 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Hahn, U.; Reimer, U.: Informationslinguistische Konzepte der Volltextverarbeitung in TOPIC (1983) 0.03 
    0.027001938 = product of:
  0.09450678 = sum of:
    0.08688835 = weight(_text_:u in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08688835 = score(doc=450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.0076184273 = weight(_text_:a in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076184273 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Type
    a
  2. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Maier, E.; Sigel, A.: How to implement a naturalistic model of abstracting : four core working steps of an expert abstractor (1995) 0.03 
    0.026220212 = product of:
  0.09177074 = sum of:
    0.009330629 = weight(_text_:a in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009330629 = score(doc=2930,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2930, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2930)
    0.08244011 = product of:
      0.16488022 = sum of:
        0.16488022 = weight(_text_:sigel in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16488022 = score(doc=2930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28102946 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.5860133 = idf(docFreq=60, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.5867008 = fieldWeight in 2930, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.5860133 = idf(docFreq=60, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    4 working steps taken from a comprehensive empirical model of expert abstracting are studied in order to prepare an explorative implementation of a simulation model. It aims at explaining the knowledge processing activities during professional summarizing. Following the case-based and holistic strategy of qualitative empirical research, the main features of the simulation system were developed by investigating in detail a small but central test case - 4 working steps where an expert abstractor discovers what the paper is about and drafts the topic sentence of the abstract
    Type
    a
  3. Heinrich, G.: ¬Die "Allzweck-Annotation" und der annotierte Katalogzetteldienst : offene Fragen und mögliche Alternativen (1971) 0.03 
    0.025272988 = product of:
  0.08845545 = sum of:
    0.080837026 = weight(_text_:g in 4858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080837026 = score(doc=4858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.5809685 = fieldWeight in 4858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4858)
    0.0076184273 = weight(_text_:a in 4858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076184273 = score(doc=4858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4858, 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=4858)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Type
    a
  4. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Kognitive Modellierung des Abstracting (1991) 0.02 
    0.023144519 = product of:
  0.08100581 = sum of:
    0.07447573 = weight(_text_:u in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07447573 = score(doc=23,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006530081 = score(doc=23,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Source
    Deutscher Dokumentartag 1990. 1. Deutsch-deutscher Dokumentartag, 25.-27.9.90, Fulda. Proceedings. Hrsg. W. Neubauer u. U. Schneider-Briehn
    Type
    a
  5. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: ¬An empirical process model of abstracting (1992) 0.02 
    0.01768492 = product of:
  0.06189722 = sum of:
    0.05266229 = weight(_text_:u in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05266229 = score(doc=8834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.0092349285 = weight(_text_:a in 8834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0092349285 = score(doc=8834,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  6. Bakewell, K.G.B.; Rowland, G.: Indexing and abstracting (1993) 0.02 
    0.015352251 = product of:
  0.053732876 = sum of:
    0.046192586 = weight(_text_:g in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046192586 = score(doc=5540,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.331982 = fieldWeight in 5540, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5540)
    0.007540288 = weight(_text_:a in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007540288 = score(doc=5540,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 5540, 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=5540)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    State of the art review of UK developments in indexing and abstracting druing the period 1986-1990 covering: bibliographies of indexing and abstracting; British standards (including the revised British Standard on indexing, BS 3700); Wheatley Medal and Carey Award; a list of indexes published during this period; the role of the computer and automatic indexing; hypermedia; PRECIS; POPSI, relational indexing; thesauri; education and training; the indexing process, newspaper indexing; fiction indexes; the indexing profession; and a review of abstracting and indexing services
    Type
    a
  7. Reischer, J.; Lottes, D.; Meier, F.; Stirner, M.: Evaluation von Summarizing-Systemen : Kommerzielle und freie Systeme im Vergleich (2010) 0.01 
    0.011274738 = product of:
  0.039461583 = sum of:
    0.035108197 = weight(_text_:u in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035108197 = score(doc=492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.004353387 = weight(_text_:a in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004353387 = score(doc=492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  8. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.01 
    0.009863227 = product of:
  0.034521293 = sum of:
    0.00942536 = weight(_text_:a in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00942536 = score(doc=3061,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.025095932 = product of:
      0.050191864 = sum of:
        0.050191864 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050191864 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  9. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (2003) 0.01 
    0.008456053 = product of:
  0.029596185 = sum of:
    0.026331145 = weight(_text_:u in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026331145 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.0032650405 = weight(_text_:a in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0032650405 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  10. Hahn, U.: Abstracting - Textzusammenfassung (2023) 0.01 
    0.008456053 = product of:
  0.029596185 = sum of:
    0.026331145 = weight(_text_:u in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026331145 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.0032650405 = weight(_text_:a in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0032650405 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Type
    a
  11. Tenopir, C.; Jascó, P.: Quality of abstracts (1993) 0.01 
    0.008201604 = product of:
  0.028705612 = sum of:
    0.021165324 = product of:
      0.04233065 = sum of:
        0.04233065 = weight(_text_:p in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04233065 = score(doc=5026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007540288 = weight(_text_:a in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007540288 = score(doc=5026,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 5026, 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=5026)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
    Type
    a
  12. Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988) 0.01 
    0.007890581 = product of:
  0.027617034 = sum of:
    0.007540288 = weight(_text_:a in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007540288 = score(doc=2832,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2832, 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=2832)
    0.020076746 = product of:
      0.040153492 = sum of:
        0.040153492 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040153492 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
    Type
    a
  13. Sauperl, A.; Klasinc, J.; Luzar, S.: Components of abstracts : logical structure of scholarly abstracts in pharmacology, sociology, and linguistics and literature (2008) 0.01 
    0.0068998327 = product of:
  0.024149414 = sum of:
    0.018707681 = product of:
      0.037415363 = sum of:
        0.037415363 = weight(_text_:p in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037415363 = score(doc=1961,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0054417336 = weight(_text_:a in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054417336 = score(doc=1961,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  14. Cleveland, D.B.; Cleveland, A.D.: Introduction to abstracting and indexing (2001) 0.01 
    0.0062693213 = product of:
  0.043885246 = sum of:
    0.043885246 = weight(_text_:u in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043885246 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Theme
    Grundlagen u. Einführungen: Allgemeine Literatur
  15. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.01 
    0.0061678975 = product of:
  0.02158764 = sum of:
    0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006530081 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.015057558 = product of:
      0.030115116 = sum of:
        0.030115116 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030115116 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  16. Kuhlen, R.: Informationsaufbereitung III : Referieren (Abstracts - Abstracting - Grundlagen) (2004) 0.01 
    0.006092641 = product of:
  0.021324243 = sum of:
    0.017554099 = weight(_text_:u in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017554099 = score(doc=2917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.14471136 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
    0.003770144 = weight(_text_:a in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003770144 = score(doc=2917,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis
    Type
    a
  17. Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996) 0.01 
    0.0059179356 = product of:
  0.020712774 = sum of:
    0.005655216 = weight(_text_:a in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005655216 = score(doc=7244,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 7244, 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=7244)
    0.015057558 = product of:
      0.030115116 = sum of:
        0.030115116 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030115116 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
    Type
    a
  18. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.01 
    0.0059179356 = product of:
  0.020712774 = sum of:
    0.005655216 = weight(_text_:a in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005655216 = score(doc=2421,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.015057558 = product of:
      0.030115116 = sum of:
        0.030115116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030115116 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  19. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences (2009) 0.01 
    0.005854702 = product of:
  0.020491457 = sum of:
    0.015873993 = product of:
      0.031747986 = sum of:
        0.031747986 = weight(_text_:p in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031747986 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0046174643 = weight(_text_:a in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046174643 = score(doc=3115,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  20. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.01 
    0.0053234315 = product of:
  0.01863201 = sum of:
    0.0060840435 = weight(_text_:a in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060840435 = score(doc=7673,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = 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)
    0.012547966 = product of:
      0.025095932 = sum of:
        0.025095932 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025095932 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 56
  • d 22
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 68
  • m 8
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications