Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02213853 = product of:
  0.08855412 = sum of:
    0.07244711 = weight(_text_:studies in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07244711 = score(doc=4411,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.45816267 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Structured abstracts are abstracts which include subheadings such as: background, aims, participants methods and results. These are rapidly replacing traditional abstracts in medical periodicals, but the number and detail of the subheadings used varies, and there is a range of different typographic settings. Reviews a number of studies designed to investigate readers' preferences for different typographic settings and layout. Over 400 readers took part in the study: students; postgraduates; research workers and academics in the social sciences. The most preferred version emerged from the last of 3 studies and 2 additional studies were then carried out to determine preferences for the overall position and layout of this most preferred version on a A4 page. The most preferred version for the setting of the subheadings are printed in bold capital letters

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37

0.017569296 = product of:
  0.070277184 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=3295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=3295,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Reports on one area of research in an Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) MODELS (MOving to Distributed Environments for Library Services) supporting study in 3 investigative areas: examination of current database producers' guidelines for their abstract writers; a brief survey of abstracts in some traditional online databases; and a detailed survey of abstracts from 3 types of electronic database (print sourced online databases, Internet subject trees or directories, and Internet gateways). Examination of database producers' guidelines, reported here, gave a clear view of the intentions behind professionally produced traditional (printed index based) database abstracts and provided a benchmark against which to judge the conclusions of the larger investigations into abstract style, readability and content

0.015998483 = product of:
  0.12798786 = sum of:
    0.12798786 = sum of:
      0.08503584 = weight(_text_:area in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08503584 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.43551105 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
      0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042952027 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Reference librarians, who are thoroughly familiar with the purpose, scope and arrangement of abstract periodicals, are uniquely qualified for the task of writing abstracts. The procedures described here offer a relatively simple way for them to write acceptable abstracts from the outset. Although research is being conducted in the area of machine generated abstracts, there wll continue to be a role for human abstractors.

Source

Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308

0.01206966 = product of:
  0.04827864 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 studies to determine if structured abstracts offer any advantage to users in terms of whether they are easier to search. In study 1, using a specially prepared electronic database of abstracts in either their original format or the structured format, 52 users were asked to find the answers to 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts in traditional format followed by 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts set in the structured format. Time and error data were recorded automatically. In study 2, using a printed database, 56 users were asked to to find 5 abstracts that reprted a particular kind of study and then find 5 more references that reported another kind of study. In study 1 users performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts but there were some unexplainable practice effects. In study 2, the users again performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts. However, there were asymmetrical transfer effects: users who responded first to the structured abstracts responded more quickly to the following traditional abstracts than did those users who responded first to the traditional abstracts. Nevertheless, the overall findings support the hypothesis that it is easier for user to search structured abstracts than it is to search traditional abstracts

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356

0.01111404 = product of:
  0.04445616 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.010578179 = product of:
  0.08462543 = sum of:
    0.08462543 = weight(_text_:case in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08462543 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48573974 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.010471863 = product of:
  0.0837749 = sum of:
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=2930,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 2930, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2930)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

0.009858803 = product of:
  0.07887042 = sum of:
    0.07887042 = weight(_text_:studies in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07887042 = score(doc=2999,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4987843 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

0.008714033 = product of:
  0.06971227 = sum of:
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=3959,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to systemize and improve the scientific status of studies on document abstracting. This is a diachronic, systematic study of document abstracting studies carried out from different perspectives and models (textual, psycholinguistic, social and communicative). Design/methodology/approach - A review of the perspectives and analysis proposals which are of interest to the various theoreticians of abstracting is carried out using a variety of techniques and approaches (cognitive, linguistic, communicative-social, didactic, etc.), each with different levels of theoretical and methodological abstraction and degrees of application. The most significant contributions of each are reviewed and highlighted, along with their limitations. Findings - It is found that the great challenge in abstracting is the systemization of models and conceptual apparatus, which open up this type of research to semiotic and socio-interactional perspectives. It is necessary to carry out suitable empirical research with operative designs and ad hoc measuring instruments which can measure the efficiency of the abstracting and the efficiency of a good abstract, while at the same time feeding back into the theoretical baggage of this type of study. Such research will have to explain and provide answers to all the elements and variables, which affect the realization and the reception of a quality abstract. Originality/value - The paper provides a small map of the studies on document abstracting. This shows how the conceptual and methodological framework has extended at the same time as the Science of Documentation has been evolving. All the models analysed - the communicative and interactional approach - are integrated in a new systematic framework.

0.007546574 = product of:
  0.06037259 = sum of:
    0.06037259 = weight(_text_:studies in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06037259 = score(doc=1325,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3818022 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0069712265 = product of:
  0.055769812 = sum of:
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

0.0066819587 = product of:
  0.05345567 = sum of:
    0.05345567 = weight(_text_:libraries in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05345567 = score(doc=764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

Source

Health libraries review. 14(1997) no.3, S.157-166

0.0061617517 = product of:
  0.049294014 = sum of:
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=2362,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.005906073 = product of:
  0.047248583 = sum of:
    0.047248583 = weight(_text_:libraries in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047248583 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.36295068 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Imprint

Englewood, CO. : Libraries Unlimited

0.00522842 = product of:
  0.04182736 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0047248583 = product of:
  0.037798867 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=317)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Imprint

Englewood, CO. : Libraries Unlimited

0.004650397 = product of:
  0.037203178 = sum of:
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The need for criteria by which to judge the adequacy of an abstract is felt most strongly when evaluating machine-produced abstracts. In order to develop a set of criteria, a survey was conducted of the instructions prepared by various scientific publications as a guide to their abstracters in the preparation of copy. One-hundred-and-thirty sets of instructions were analyzed and compared as to their function, content, and form. It was concluded that, while differences in subject matter do not necessarily require different kinds of abstracts, there are significant variations between the informative and the indicative abstract. A set of criteria for the writing of an acceptable abstract of science literature was derived. The adequacy of these criteria is still to be validated, and the athors' plans for fututre research in this area are specified

0.004650397 = product of:
  0.037203178 = sum of:
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=3740,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

An abstract itself is a text which is subjected to general and specific conditions of text production. The goal - namely the forming of the abstract as a text - controls the whole process of abstracting. This goal oriented view contrasts to most approaches in this domain which are source text oriented. Production strategies are described in terms of text structure building processes which are reconstructed with methods of modelling in the area of text linguistics and computational linguistics. This leads to a close relationship between thr representation of the model and the resulting text. Gives examples in which authentic material of abstracts is analyzed according to the model. The model itself integrates 3 text levels which are combined and represented in terms of the writer's activities

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

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

0.0039860546 = product of:
  0.031888437 = sum of:
    0.031888437 = product of:
      0.06377687 = sum of:
        0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06377687 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.