Search (57 results, page 1 of 3)

0.024219502 = product of:
  0.048439004 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
    0.032236587 = product of:
      0.064473175 = sum of:
        0.064473175 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064473175 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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(2/4)

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

Source

Journal of education for library and information science. 36(1995) no.2, S.170-173

0.019856151 = product of:
  0.039712302 = sum of:
    0.025720537 = weight(_text_:information in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025720537 = score(doc=4913,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Covers: indexing principles and practice; precoordinate indexes; consistency and quality of indexing; types and functions of abstracts; writing an abstract; evaluation theory and practice; approaches used in indexing and abstracting services; indexing enhancement; natural language in information retrieval; indexing and abstracting of imaginative works; databases of images and sound; automatic indexing and abstracting; the future of indexing and abstracting services

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 57(2006) no.1, S.144-145 (H. Saggion): "... This volume is a very valuable source of information for not only students and professionals in library and information science but also for individuals and institutions involved in knowledge management and organization activities. Because of its broad coverage of the information science topic, teachers will find the contents of this book useful for courses in the areas of information technology, digital as well as traditional libraries, and information science in general."

Imprint

Champaign, IL : Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.017864795 = product of:
  0.03572959 = sum of:
    0.021737823 = weight(_text_:information in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021737823 = score(doc=3115,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Detailed checklists and questionnaires have been used in the past to assess the quality of structured abstracts in the medical sciences. The aim of this article is to report the findings when a simpler checklist was used to evaluate the quality of 100 traditional abstracts published in 53 different social science journals. Most of these abstracts contained information about the aims, methods, and results of the studies. However, many did not report details about the sample sizes, ages, or sexes of the participants, or where the research was carried out. The correlation between the lengths of the abstracts and the amount of information present was 0.37 (p < .001), suggesting that word limits for abstracts may restrict the presence of key information to some extent. We conclude that authors can improve the quality of information in traditional abstracts in the social sciences by using the simple checklist provided in this article.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2010-2018

0.01666686 = product of:
  0.06666744 = sum of:
    0.06666744 = sum of:
      0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027983533 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
      0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038683902 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0145317 = product of:
  0.0290634 = sum of:
    0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00972145 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.019341951 = product of:
      0.038683902 = sum of:
        0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038683902 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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(2/4)

Source

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

0.0145317 = product of:
  0.0290634 = sum of:
    0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00972145 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
    0.019341951 = product of:
      0.038683902 = sum of:
        0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038683902 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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(2/4)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

Source

Journal of librarianship and information science. 28(1996) no.4, S.217-225

0.01393111 = product of:
  0.02786222 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=5049,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.013787566 = product of:
  0.027575132 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=7673,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
    0.016118294 = product of:
      0.032236587 = sum of:
        0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032236587 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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(2/4)

Source

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

0.012845755 = product of:
  0.02569151 = sum of:
    0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140317045 = score(doc=1325,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.012845755 = product of:
  0.02569151 = sum of:
    0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140317045 = score(doc=1961,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The international standard ISO 214:1976 defines an abstract as "an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document" (p. 1) that should "enable readers to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately to determine relevance" (p. 1). It also should be useful in computerized searching. The ISO standard suggests including the following elements: purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Researchers have often challenged this structure and found that different disciplines and cultures prefer different information content. These claims are partially supported by the findings of our research into the structure of pharmacology, sociology, and Slovenian language and literature abstracts of papers published in international and Slovenian scientific periodicals. The three disciplines have different information content. Slovenian pharmacology abstracts differ in content from those in international periodicals while the differences between international and Slovenian abstracts are small in sociology. In the field of Slovenian language and literature, only domestic abstracts were studied. The identified differences can in part be attributed to the disciplines, but also to the different role of journals and papers in the professional society and to differences in perception of the role of abstracts. The findings raise questions about the structure of abstracts required by some publishers of international journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1420-1432

0.012845755 = product of:
  0.02569151 = sum of:
    0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140317045 = score(doc=612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.291-306

0.011856608 = product of:
  0.023713216 = sum of:
    0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00972145 = score(doc=3788,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=3788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2101-2115

0.011558321 = product of:
  0.023116643 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=2362,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.008101207 = product of:
  0.03240483 = sum of:
    0.03240483 = weight(_text_:information in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240483 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.38790947 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.008019786 = product of:
  0.032079145 = sum of:
    0.032079145 = weight(_text_:information in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032079145 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.10, S.845-854

0.0075018234 = product of:
  0.030007293 = sum of:
    0.030007293 = weight(_text_:information in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030007293 = score(doc=3610,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.006480966 = product of:
  0.025923865 = sum of:
    0.025923865 = weight(_text_:information in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025923865 = score(doc=3872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.625-784

0.006480966 = product of:
  0.025923865 = sum of:
    0.025923865 = weight(_text_:information in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025923865 = score(doc=1007,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

1st ed.: Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information 1982

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of chemical information and computer sciences 36(1996) no.5, S.1050 (V.K. Raman); Information processing and management 33(1997) no.4, S.573 (H.R. Tibbo)

Imprint

Arlington, VA : Information resources Press

0.0064473175 = product of:
  0.02578927 = sum of:
    0.02578927 = product of:
      0.05157854 = sum of:
        0.05157854 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05157854 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.006430134 = product of:
  0.025720537 = sum of:
    0.025720537 = weight(_text_:information in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025720537 = score(doc=728,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted by the European Society of Paediatric Research (ESPR), to determine whether the information content of structured medical abstracts is greater than abstracts with traditional format and whether the efficacy of peer review is improved by the use of structured medical abstracts. The sample studied comprised the abstracts of papers submitted for the ESPR annual meeting and each abstract was assessed by a research worker by a research worker for information content by referring to a list of criteria. The words in each abstract were counted to obtain the information density of each and the abstracts were evaluated according to whether they were in an unstructured format, a semistructured format, or a more fully structured format. Although there was no significant difference in the scientific score of the scientific information density of the different formats there was significantly more information in the fully structured format. When the abstracts were resubmitted in structured format, there was always a highly significant increase in the information content