-
Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995)
0.09
0.09204604 = product of:
0.13806905 = sum of:
0.010677542 = weight(_text_:in in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010677542 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
0.1273915 = sum of:
0.056626115 = weight(_text_:science in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056626115 = score(doc=3061,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
0.07076539 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07076539 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of education for library and information science. 36(1995) no.2, S.170-173
-
Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006)
0.06
0.057135493 = product of:
0.08570324 = sum of:
0.019219575 = weight(_text_:in in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019219575 = score(doc=2421,freq=18.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
0.06648366 = sum of:
0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024024425 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042459235 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- Series
- Lecture notes in computer science; vol.4172
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
-
Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996)
0.05
0.053872727 = product of:
0.08080909 = sum of:
0.014325427 = weight(_text_:in in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014325427 = score(doc=7244,freq=10.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
0.06648366 = sum of:
0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024024425 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042459235 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of librarianship and information science. 28(1996) no.4, S.217-225
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.05
0.052864473 = product of:
0.07929671 = sum of:
0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012813049 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
0.06648366 = sum of:
0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024024425 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042459235 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.05
0.047002252 = product of:
0.07050338 = sum of:
0.015100324 = weight(_text_:in in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015100324 = score(doc=7673,freq=16.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
0.05540305 = sum of:
0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020020355 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
0.035382695 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035382695 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998)
0.03
0.034088757 = product of:
0.051133133 = sum of:
0.019100567 = weight(_text_:in in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019100567 = score(doc=2999,freq=10.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
0.032032568 = product of:
0.064065136 = sum of:
0.064065136 = weight(_text_:science in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064065136 = score(doc=2999,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of information science. 24(1998) no.5, S.359-364
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? (1997)
0.03
0.033739157 = product of:
0.050608736 = sum of:
0.014795236 = weight(_text_:in in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014795236 = score(doc=2749,freq=6.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
0.0358135 = product of:
0.071627 = sum of:
0.071627 = weight(_text_:science in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071627 = score(doc=2749,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.52061355 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (2003)
0.03
0.028096542 = product of:
0.042144813 = sum of:
0.01812039 = weight(_text_:in in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01812039 = score(doc=4913,freq=16.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
0.024024425 = product of:
0.04804885 = sum of:
0.04804885 = weight(_text_:science in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04804885 = score(doc=4913,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- Covers: indexing principles and practice; precoordinate indexes; consistency and quality of indexing; types and functions of abstracts; writing an abstract; evaluation theory and practice; approaches used in indexing and abstracting services; indexing enhancement; natural language in information retrieval; indexing and abstracting of imaginative works; databases of images and sound; automatic indexing and abstracting; the future of indexing and abstracting services
- 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."
- Imprint
- Champaign, IL : Graduate School of Library and Information Science
-
Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1991)
0.03
0.026147967 = product of:
0.03922195 = sum of:
0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014948557 = score(doc=752,freq=8.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.024273392 = product of:
0.048546784 = sum of:
0.048546784 = weight(_text_:science in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048546784 = score(doc=752,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- Enthält folgende Kapitel: Pre-coordinate indexes; consistency of indexing: quality of indexing; abstracts: types and functions, writing the abstract, natural language in information retrieval, automatic indexing. There are exercises in both indexing and abstracting procedures
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Library and information science resaerch 14(1992) no.1, S.117-118 (C. Tenopir); International classification 19(1992) no.4, S.227-228 (R. Fugmann); Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43(1992) no.6, S.456 (B.R. Boyce); Cataloging & classification quarterly 15(1992) no.1, S.245-247 (E.M. Rasmussen) Journal of academic librarianship 18(1992) no.1, S.39 (G.A. Crawford) // Winner of the 1992 ASIS best information science book award
-
Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988)
0.02
0.024565458 = product of:
0.036848187 = sum of:
0.008542033 = weight(_text_:in in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008542033 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
0.028306156 = product of:
0.056612313 = sum of:
0.056612313 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056612313 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences (2009)
0.02
0.023405483 = product of:
0.035108224 = sum of:
0.01812039 = weight(_text_:in in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01812039 = score(doc=3115,freq=16.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
0.016987834 = product of:
0.03397567 = sum of:
0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03397567 = score(doc=3115,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2010-2018
-
Spiteri, L.F.: Library and information science vs business : a comparison of approaches to abstracting (1997)
0.02
0.023178466 = product of:
0.0347677 = sum of:
0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014948557 = score(doc=3699,freq=8.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
0.01981914 = product of:
0.03963828 = sum of:
0.03963828 = weight(_text_:science in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03963828 = score(doc=3699,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The library and information science (LIS) literature on abstracting makes little mention about abstracting conducted in the corporate / business environment, whereas the business literature suggests that abstarcting is a very important component of business writing. Examines a variety of publications from LIS and business in order to compare and contrast their approaches to the following aspects of abstracting: definitions of abstracts; types of abstracts; purpose of abstracts; and writing of abstracts. Summarises the results of the examination which revealed a number of similarities, differences, and inadequacies in the ways in which both fields approach abstracting. Concludes that both fields need to develop more detailed guidelines concerning the cognitive process of abstracting and suggests improvements to the training af absractors based on these findings
-
Montesi, M.; Urdiciain, B.G.: Recent linguistic research into author abstracts : its value for information science (2005)
0.02
0.021787036 = product of:
0.032680552 = sum of:
0.015692718 = weight(_text_:in in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015692718 = score(doc=4823,freq=12.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
0.016987834 = product of:
0.03397567 = sum of:
0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03397567 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
-
Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Content analysis : a special case of text compression (1989)
0.02
0.020465266 = product of:
0.030697897 = sum of:
0.010677542 = weight(_text_:in in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010677542 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
0.020020355 = product of:
0.04004071 = sum of:
0.04004071 = weight(_text_:science in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04004071 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Presents a theoretical model, based on the Flower/Hayes model of expository writing, of the process involved in content analysis for abstracting and indexing.
- Imprint
- Amsterdam : Elsevier Science Publishers
-
Sen, B.K.: Research articles in LISA Plus : problems of identification (1997)
0.02
0.02025958 = product of:
0.030389369 = sum of:
0.010570227 = weight(_text_:in in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010570227 = score(doc=430,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
0.01981914 = product of:
0.03963828 = sum of:
0.03963828 = weight(_text_:science in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03963828 = score(doc=430,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to determine how easy and quickly research articles in library and information science could be retrieved from the LISA Plus CD-ROM database. Results show that the search with the descriptor 'research' retrieves all types of articles and it is necessary to read through every abstract to locate the research articles. The introductory sentence of a substantial number of abstracts hinder the process of identification since the sentence provides such information as the conference where the paper was presented, the special issue or the section of a periodical where the article is located; or obvious background information. Suggests measures whereby research articles can be identified easily and rapidly
- Source
- Malaysian journal of library and information science. 2(1997) no.1, S.97-106
-
Borko, H.; Chatman, S.: Criteria for acceptable abstracts : a survey of abstractors' instructions (1963)
0.02
0.019308537 = product of:
0.028962806 = sum of:
0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014948557 = score(doc=687,freq=8.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
0.014014249 = product of:
0.028028497 = sum of:
0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028028497 = score(doc=687,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Tibbo, H.R.: Abstracting across the disciplines : a content analysis of abstracts for the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval (1992)
0.02
0.01873103 = product of:
0.028096544 = sum of:
0.01208026 = weight(_text_:in in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01208026 = score(doc=2536,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.016016284 = product of:
0.032032568 = sum of:
0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032032568 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Source
- Library and information science research. 14(1992) no.1, S.31-56
-
Booth, A.; O'Rouke, A.J.: ¬The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE (1997)
0.02
0.01873103 = product of:
0.028096544 = sum of:
0.01208026 = weight(_text_:in in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01208026 = score(doc=764,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
0.016016284 = product of:
0.032032568 = sum of:
0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032032568 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Presents a structured abstract of the actual article. Outlines the debate on the value of structured abstracts and describes a research project into their use, which investigated records of cardiovascular disease downloaded from MEDLINE and tested against clinical questions derived from a survey of CD-ROM use in 3 health science libraries. It was found that structured abstracts improve precision at the expense of recall and place heavier demands on the skills of selecting fields to search within the abstract. Indicates directions for further research
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: ¬The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts (2007)
0.02
0.018477919 = product of:
0.027716877 = sum of:
0.0177067 = weight(_text_:in in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0177067 = score(doc=1325,freq=22.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
0.010010177 = product of:
0.020020355 = sum of:
0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020020355 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Previous research assessing the effectiveness of structured abstracts has been limited in two respects. First, when comparing structured abstracts with traditional ones, investigators usually have rewritten the original abstracts, and thus confounded changes in the layout with changes in both the wording and the content of the text. Second, investigators have not always included the title of the article together with the abstract when asking participants to judge the quality of the abstracts, yet titles alert readers to the meaning of the materials that follow. The aim of this research was to redress these limitations. Three studies were carried out. Four versions of each of four abstracts were prepared. These versions consisted of structured/traditional abstracts matched in content, with and without titles. In Study 1, 64 undergraduates each rated one of these abstracts on six separate rating scales. In Study 2, 225 academics and research workers rated the abstracts electronically, and in Study 3, 252 information scientists did likewise. In Studies 1 and 3, the respondents rated the structured abstracts significantly more favorably than they did the traditional ones, but the presence or absence of titles had no effect on their judgments. In Study 2, no main effects were observed for structure or for titles. The layout of the text, together with the subheadings, contributed to the higher ratings of effectiveness for structured abstracts, but the presence or absence of titles had no clear effects in these experimental studies. It is likely that this spatial organization, together with the greater amount of information normally provided in structured abstracts, explains why structured abstracts are generally judged to be superior to traditional ones.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.14, S.2335-2340
-
Sauperl, A.; Klasinc, J.; Luzar, S.: Components of abstracts : logical structure of scholarly abstracts in pharmacology, sociology, and linguistics and literature (2008)
0.02
0.01792857 = product of:
0.026892854 = sum of:
0.016882677 = weight(_text_:in in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016882677 = score(doc=1961,freq=20.0), product of:
0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
0.010010177 = product of:
0.020020355 = sum of:
0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020020355 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052230705 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1420-1432
