-
Sauperl, A.; Klasinc, J.; Luzar, S.: Components of abstracts : logical structure of scholarly abstracts in pharmacology, sociology, and linguistics and literature (2008)
0.03
0.028486984 = product of:
0.056973968 = sum of:
0.056973968 = product of:
0.113947935 = sum of:
0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.113947935 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
0.05006422 = queryNorm
0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008)
0.03
0.028486984 = product of:
0.056973968 = sum of:
0.056973968 = product of:
0.113947935 = sum of:
0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.113947935 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
0.05006422 = queryNorm
0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995)
0.02
0.016957529 = product of:
0.033915058 = sum of:
0.033915058 = product of:
0.067830116 = sum of:
0.067830116 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067830116 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05006422 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 27. 1.1996 18:22:06
-
Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988)
0.01
0.013566022 = product of:
0.027132044 = sum of:
0.027132044 = product of:
0.054264087 = sum of:
0.054264087 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054264087 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05006422 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.01
0.010174517 = product of:
0.020349033 = sum of:
0.020349033 = product of:
0.040698066 = sum of:
0.040698066 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040698066 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05006422 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
-
Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996)
0.01
0.010174517 = product of:
0.020349033 = sum of:
0.020349033 = product of:
0.040698066 = sum of:
0.040698066 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040698066 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05006422 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
-
Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006)
0.01
0.010174517 = product of:
0.020349033 = sum of:
0.020349033 = product of:
0.040698066 = sum of:
0.040698066 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040698066 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05006422 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.01
0.008478764 = product of:
0.016957529 = sum of:
0.016957529 = product of:
0.033915058 = sum of:
0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033915058 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05006422 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
