Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Fraenkel, A.S.; Klein, S.T.: Information retrieval from annotated texts (1999) 0.02 
    0.018471893 = product of:
  0.036943786 = sum of:
    0.036943786 = product of:
      0.07388757 = sum of:
        0.07388757 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07388757 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  2. Fidel, R.: Writing abstracts for free-text searching (1986) 0.02 
    0.018282432 = product of:
  0.036564864 = sum of:
    0.036564864 = product of:
      0.07312973 = sum of:
        0.07312973 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07312973 = score(doc=684,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A survey of abstracting policies by producers of bibliographical databases examined abstracting guidelines which aim to enhance free- text retrieval. Of the 123 database policies examined, fifty-seven (46 per cent) included such instructions. Editors consider contents of abstracts and their language as a primary factor in retrieval enhancement. Most recommend that once abstractors decide which concepts to include in abstracts and in which form to represent them, these terms should be co-ordinated with index terms assigned from a controlled vocabulary. Guidelines about the type of abstracts, i.e., informative or indicative, and about their length are not affected by the capability of free-text retrieval
  3. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.02 
    0.017682636 = product of:
  0.035365272 = sum of:
    0.035365272 = product of:
      0.070730545 = sum of:
        0.070730545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070730545 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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
  4. Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988) 0.01 
    0.014146109 = product of:
  0.028292218 = sum of:
    0.028292218 = product of:
      0.056584436 = sum of:
        0.056584436 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056584436 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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
  5. Cremmins, E.T.: ¬The art of abstracting (1996) 0.01 
    0.013194209 = product of:
  0.026388418 = sum of:
    0.026388418 = product of:
      0.052776836 = sum of:
        0.052776836 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052776836 = score(doc=282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reviews, enlarges upon and refines the author's three-stage analytical reading method (retrieval reading, creative reading and critical reading) for the preparation of informative and indicative literature abstracts
  6. O'Rourke, A.J.: Structured abstracts in information retrieval from biomedical databases : a literature survey (1997) 0.01 
    0.0130616 = product of:
  0.0261232 = sum of:
    0.0261232 = product of:
      0.0522464 = sum of:
        0.0522464 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0522464 = score(doc=85,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  7. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.01 
    0.010609582 = product of:
  0.021219164 = sum of:
    0.021219164 = product of:
      0.04243833 = sum of:
        0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04243833 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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
  8. Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996) 0.01 
    0.010609582 = product of:
  0.021219164 = sum of:
    0.021219164 = product of:
      0.04243833 = sum of:
        0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04243833 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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
  9. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.01 
    0.010609582 = product of:
  0.021219164 = sum of:
    0.021219164 = product of:
      0.04243833 = sum of:
        0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04243833 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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
  10. 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) 0.01 
    0.010555367 = product of:
  0.021110734 = sum of:
    0.021110734 = product of:
      0.042221468 = sum of:
        0.042221468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042221468 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  11. Neumann-Duscha, I.: Über die Qualität von Referaten (1990) 0.01 
    0.010555367 = product of:
  0.021110734 = sum of:
    0.021110734 = product of:
      0.042221468 = sum of:
        0.042221468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042221468 = score(doc=8593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 8593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die Qualität der Dokumentenanlyse entscheidet über die Wirksamkeit eines Dokumentationsvorhabens, denn Auswahl und Darstellung von Informationselementen bilden die Grundlage zum Wiederfinden des dokumentierten Wissens. Kurzreferate informieren über den Inhalt einer Veröffentlichung. Verschiedene Typen von Inhaltsangaben werden entsprechend der DIN 1426 vorgestellt, Vorschriften und Anweisungen an Referate werden analysiert und die Bewertung der Qualität von Kurzreferaten diskutiert. Das zunehmende Wissen über den Aufbau und das Information Retrieval von Faktendatenbanken führt zu der Schlußfolgerung, daß über die verbale Kurzdarstellung des Dokumenteninhalts hinaus Fakten extrahiert und in speziellen Datenbanken gespeichert werden sollten
  12. Booth, A.; O'Rouke, A.J.: ¬The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE (1997) 0.01 
    0.010555367 = product of:
  0.021110734 = sum of:
    0.021110734 = product of:
      0.042221468 = sum of:
        0.042221468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042221468 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  13. Cremmins, E.T.: ¬The art of abstracting (1996) 0.01 
    0.010555367 = product of:
  0.021110734 = sum of:
    0.021110734 = product of:
      0.042221468 = sum of:
        0.042221468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042221468 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reviews, enlarges upon and refines the author's three-stage analytical reading method (retrieval reading, creative reading and critical reading) for the preparation of informative and indicative literature abstracts
  14. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1991) 0.01 
    0.009235946 = product of:
  0.018471893 = sum of:
    0.018471893 = product of:
      0.036943786 = sum of:
        0.036943786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036943786 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  15. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.01 
    0.008841318 = product of:
  0.017682636 = sum of:
    0.017682636 = product of:
      0.035365272 = sum of:
        0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035365272 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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
  16. Wheatley, A.; Armstrong, C.J.: Metadata, recall, and abstracts : can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value? (1997) 0.01 
    0.007916525 = product of:
  0.01583305 = sum of:
    0.01583305 = product of:
      0.0316661 = sum of:
        0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316661 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Abstracts from 7 Internet subject trees (Euroferret, Excite, Infoseek, Lycos Top 5%, Magellan, WebCrawler, Yahoo!), 5 Internet subject gateways (ADAM, EEVL, NetFirst, OMNI, SOSIG), and 3 online databases (ERIC, ISI, LISA) were examined for their subject content, treatment of various enriching features, physical properties such as overall length, anf their readability. Considerable differences were measured, and consistent similarities among abstracts from each type of source were demonstrated. Internet subject tree abstracts were generally the shortest, and online database abstracts the longest. Subject tree and online database abstracts were the most informative, but the level of coverage of document features such as tables, bibliographies, and geographical constraints were disappointingly poor. On balance, the Internet gateways appeared to be providing the most satisfactory abstracts. The authors discuss the continuing role in networked information retrieval of abstracts and their functional analoques such as metadata
  17. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (2003) 0.01 
    0.007916525 = product of:
  0.01583305 = sum of:
    0.01583305 = product of:
      0.0316661 = sum of:
        0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316661 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  18. Parekh, R.L.: Advanced indexing and abstracting practices (2000) 0.01 
    0.007916525 = product of:
  0.01583305 = sum of:
    0.01583305 = product of:
      0.0316661 = sum of:
        0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316661 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Indexing and abstracting are not activities that should be looked upon as ends in themselves. It is the results of these activities that should be evaluated and this can only be done within the context of a particular database, whether in printed or machine-readable form. In this context, the indexing can be judged successful if it allows searchers to locate items they want without having to look at many they do not want. This book intended primarily as a text to be used in teaching indexing and abstracting of Library and information science. It is an immense value to all individuals and institutions involved in information retrieval and related activities, including librarians, managers of information centres and database producers.
  19. Wang, F.L.; Yang, C.C.: ¬The impact analysis of language differences on an automatic multilingual text summarization system (2006) 0.01 
    0.0065971045 = product of:
  0.013194209 = sum of:
    0.013194209 = product of:
      0.026388418 = sum of:
        0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026388418 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 17
  • d 2

Types

  • a 14
  • m 5

Themes

Subjects

Classifications