Search (60 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: ¬The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts (2007) 0.05 
    0.051805913 = product of:
  0.14246626 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
    0.053516448 = weight(_text_:effect in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053516448 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
    0.020333098 = weight(_text_:of in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020333098 = score(doc=1325,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=1325,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    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
  2. Wang, F.L.; Yang, C.C.: ¬The impact analysis of language differences on an automatic multilingual text summarization system (2006) 0.03 
    0.031518973 = product of:
  0.11556956 = sum of:
    0.07568369 = weight(_text_:effect in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07568369 = score(doc=5049,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    0.015471167 = weight(_text_:of in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015471167 = score(doc=5049,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    0.024414703 = weight(_text_:on in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024414703 = score(doc=5049,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3214632 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Based on the salient features of the documents, automatic text summarization systems extract the key sentences from source documents. This process supports the users in evaluating the relevance of the extracted documents returned by information retrieval systems. Because of this tool, efficient filtering can be achieved. Indirectly, these systems help to resolve the problem of information overloading. Many automatic text summarization systems have been implemented for use with different languages. It has been established that the grammatical and lexical differences between languages have a significant effect on text processing. However, the impact of the language differences on the automatic text summarization systems has not yet been investigated. The authors provide an impact analysis of language difference on automatic text summarization. It includes the effect on the extraction processes, the scoring mechanisms, the performance, and the matching of the extracted sentences, using the parallel corpus in English and Chinese as the tested object. The analysis results provide a greater understanding of language differences and promote the future development of more advanced text summarization techniques.
    Footnote
    Beitrag einer special topic section on multilingual information systems
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.5, S.684-696
  3. Abstracting and indexing services in perspective : Miles Conrad memorial lectures 1969-1983. Commemorating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services (1983) 0.03 
    0.031052914 = product of:
  0.11386068 = sum of:
    0.012927286 = weight(_text_:of in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012927286 = score(doc=689,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
    0.08616877 = weight(_text_:technological in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08616877 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46964094 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Content
    Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: BAKER, D.B.: Abstracting and indexing services: past, present, and future; KENNEDY, H.E.: A perspective on fifteen years in the abstracting and indexing field; WEIL, B.H.: Will abstracts survive technological developments? and will "cheaper is better" win out?; KILGOUR, F.G.: Comparative development of abstracting and indexing, and monograph cataloging; ROWLETT, R.J.: Abstracts, who needs them?
  4. Bowman, J.H.: Annotation: a lost art in cataloguing (2007) 0.03 
    0.028843278 = product of:
  0.10575868 = sum of:
    0.0184714 = weight(_text_:of in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0184714 = score(doc=255,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
    0.07436824 = product of:
      0.14873648 = sum of:
        0.14873648 = weight(_text_:britain in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14873648 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25769958 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.57717 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Public library catalogues in early twentieth-century Britain frequently included annotations, either to clarify obscure titles or to provide further information about the subject-matter of the books they described. Two manuals giving instruction on how to do this were published at that time. Following World War I, with the decline of the printed catalogue, this kind of annotation became rarer, and was almost confined to bulletins of new books. The early issues of the British National Bibliography included some annotations in exceptional cases. Parallels are drawn with the provision of table-of-contents information in present-day OPAC's.
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as Cataloger, Editor, and Scholar: Essays in Honor of Ruth C. Carter
  5. Alonso, M.I.; Fernández, L.M.M.: Perspectives of studies on document abstracting : towards an integrated view of models and theoretical approaches (2010) 0.03 
    0.02682124 = product of:
  0.09834455 = sum of:
    0.021879537 = weight(_text_:of in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021879537 = score(doc=3959,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.40518725 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=3959,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
    0.060481843 = weight(_text_:great in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060481843 = score(doc=3959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.4, S.563-584
  6. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.02 
    0.015820216 = product of:
  0.05800746 = sum of:
    0.016159108 = weight(_text_:of in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016159108 = score(doc=3061,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
    0.018455777 = weight(_text_:on in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018455777 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
    0.023392577 = product of:
      0.046785153 = sum of:
        0.046785153 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046785153 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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
  7. Pinto, M.: Abstracting/abstract adaptation to digital environments : research trends (2003) 0.01 
    0.014243278 = product of:
  0.07833803 = sum of:
    0.013711456 = weight(_text_:of in 4446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013711456 = score(doc=4446,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4446, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4446)
    0.064626575 = weight(_text_:technological in 4446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064626575 = score(doc=4446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3522307 = fieldWeight in 4446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4446)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    The technological revolution is affecting the structure, form and content of documents, reducing the effectiveness of traditional abstracts that, to some extent, are inadequate to the new documentary conditions. Aims to show the directions in which abstracting/abstracts can evolve to achieve the necessary adequacy in the new digital environments. Three researching trends are proposed: theoretical, methodological and pragmatic. Theoretically, there are some needs for expanding the document concept, reengineering abstracting and designing interdisciplinary models. Methodologically, the trend is toward the structuring, automating and qualifying of the abstracts. Pragmatically, abstracts networking, combined with alternative and complementary models, open a new and promising horizon. Automating, structuring and qualifying abstracting/abstract offer some short-term prospects for progress. Concludes that reengineering, networking and visualising would be middle-term fruitful areas of research toward the full adequacy of abstracting in the new electronic age.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.5, S.581-608
  8. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008) 0.01 
    0.012114133 = product of:
  0.066627726 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
    0.0139941955 = weight(_text_:of in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0139941955 = score(doc=2362,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.12, S.1870-1877
  9. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.01 
    0.011512523 = product of:
  0.042212583 = sum of:
    0.012516791 = weight(_text_:of in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012516791 = score(doc=2421,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=2421,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
    0.014035545 = product of:
      0.02807109 = sum of:
        0.02807109 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807109 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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
  10. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.01 
    0.011427831 = product of:
  0.041902047 = sum of:
    0.016793035 = weight(_text_:of in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016793035 = score(doc=4411,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.014035545 = product of:
      0.02807109 = sum of:
        0.02807109 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807109 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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
  11. Koltay, T.: Abstracts and abstracting : a genre and set of skills for the twenty-first century (2010) 0.01 
    0.007394555 = product of:
  0.040670052 = sum of:
    0.018066432 = weight(_text_:of in 4125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018066432 = score(doc=4125,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 4125, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4125)
    0.02260362 = weight(_text_:on in 4125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02260362 = score(doc=4125,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29761705 = fieldWeight in 4125, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4125)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Despite their changing role, abstracts remain useful in the digital world. Aimed at both information professionals and researchers who work and publish in different fields, this book summarizes the most important and up-to-date theory of abstracting, as well as giving advice and examples for the practice of writing different kinds of abstracts. The book discusses the length, the functions and basic structure of abstracts. A new approach is outlined on the questions of informative and indicative abstracts. The abstractors' personality, their linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge and skills are also discussed with special attention. The process of abstracting, its steps and models, as well as recipient's role are treated with special distinction. Abstracting is presented as an aimed (purported) understanding of the original text, its interpretation and then a special projection of the information deemed to be worth of abstracting into a new text.Despite the relatively large number of textbooks on the topic there is no up-to-date book on abstracting in the English language. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of the topic, the proposed book contains novel views - especially on informative and indicative abstracts. The discussion is based on an interdisciplinary approach, blending the methods of library and information science and linguistics. The book strives to a synthesis of theory and practice. The synthesis is based on a large and existing body of knowledge which, however, is often characterised by misleading terminology and flawed beliefs.
  12. Booth, A.; O'Rouke, A.J.: ¬The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE (1997) 0.01 
    0.007386743 = product of:
  0.040627085 = sum of:
    0.019746756 = weight(_text_:of in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019746756 = score(doc=764,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
    0.02088033 = weight(_text_:on in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02088033 = score(doc=764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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
  13. Spiteri, L.F.: Library and information science vs business : a comparison of approaches to abstracting (1997) 0.01 
    0.007259987 = product of:
  0.039929926 = sum of:
    0.021659635 = weight(_text_:of in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021659635 = score(doc=3699,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
    0.01827029 = weight(_text_:on in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01827029 = score(doc=3699,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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
  14. Monday, I.: ¬Les processus cognitifs et la redaction de résumes (1996) 0.01 
    0.0070000663 = product of:
  0.038500365 = sum of:
    0.012927286 = weight(_text_:of in 6917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012927286 = score(doc=6917,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 6917, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6917)
    0.025573079 = weight(_text_:on in 6917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025573079 = score(doc=6917,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 6917, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6917)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Attempts to explain the intellectual and cognitive processes which govern the understanding and structure of a text, on the one hand, and writing a summary or abstract on the other, based on the literature of information science, education, cognitive psychology and psychiatry
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: The cognitive processes and the drafting of abstracts
  15. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Content analysis : a special case of text compression (1989) 0.01 
    0.006748129 = product of:
  0.03711471 = sum of:
    0.01865893 = weight(_text_:of in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01865893 = score(doc=3549,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
    0.018455777 = weight(_text_:on in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018455777 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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.
    Source
    Information, knowledge, evolution. Proceedings of the 44th FID Congress, Helsinki, 28.8.-1.9.1988. Ed. by S. Koshiala and R. Launo
  16. Koltay, T.: Abstracting: information literacy on a professional level (2009) 0.01 
    0.0066803074 = product of:
  0.03674169 = sum of:
    0.0184714 = weight(_text_:of in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0184714 = score(doc=3610,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
    0.01827029 = weight(_text_:on in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01827029 = score(doc=3610,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to argue for a conception of information literacy (IL) that goes beyond the abilities of finding information as it includes communication skills. An important issue in this is that abstractors exercise IL on a professional level. Design/methodology/approach - By stressing the importance of the fact that information literacy extends towards verbal communication the paper takes an interdisciplinary approach, the main component of which is linguistics. Findings - It is found that verbal communication and especially analytic-synthetic writing activities play an important role in information literacy at the level of everyday language use, semi-professional and professional summarising of information. The latter level characterises abstracting. Originality/value - The paper adds to the body of knowledge about information literacy in general and in connection with communication and abstracting.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.5, S.841-855
  17. Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998) 0.01 
    0.0062747966 = product of:
  0.03451138 = sum of:
    0.019746756 = weight(_text_:of in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019746756 = score(doc=2999,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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
  18. Bakewell, K.G.B.; Rowland, G.: Indexing and abstracting (1993) 0.01 
    0.0060084667 = product of:
  0.033046566 = sum of:
    0.018281942 = weight(_text_:of in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018281942 = score(doc=5540,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5540, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5540)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=5540,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5540, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5540)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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
  19. O'Rourke, A.J.: Structured abstracts in information retrieval from biomedical databases : a literature survey (1997) 0.01 
    0.005976948 = product of:
  0.032873213 = sum of:
    0.014602924 = weight(_text_:of in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014602924 = score(doc=85,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
    0.01827029 = weight(_text_:on in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01827029 = score(doc=85,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Clear guidelines have been provided for structuring the abstracts of original research and review articles and, in the past 10 years, several major medical periodicals have adopted the policy of including such abstracts with all their articles. A review of the literature reveals that proponents claim that structured abstracts enhance peer review, improve information retrieval, and ease critical appraisal. However, some periodicals have not adopted structured abstracts and their opponents claim that they make articles longer and harder to read and restrict author originality. Concludes that previous research on structured abstracts focused on how closely they followed prescribed structure and include salient points of the full text, rather than their role in increasing the usefulness of the article
  20. Jizba, L.: Reflections on summarizing and abstracting : implications for Internet Web documents, and standardized library cataloging databases (1997) 0.01 
    0.005976948 = product of:
  0.032873213 = sum of:
    0.014602924 = weight(_text_:of in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014602924 = score(doc=701,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.01827029 = weight(_text_:on in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01827029 = score(doc=701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Comments on the value of abstracts or summary notes to information available online via the Internet and WWW and concludes that automated abstracting techniques would be highly useful if routinely applied to cataloguing or metadata for Internet documents and documents in other databases. Information seekers need external summary information to assess content and value of retrieved documents. Examines traditional models for writers, in library audiovisual cataloguing, periodical databases and archival work, along with innovative new model databases featuring robust cataloguing summaries. Notes recent developments in automated techniques, computational research, and machine summarization of digital images. Recommendations are made for future designers of cataloguing and metadata standards
    Source
    Journal of Internet cataloging. 1(1997) no.2, S.15-39

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 56
  • d 3
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 48
  • m 9
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications