Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Structured abstracts in the social sciences : presentation, readability and recall (1995)
0.01
0.013419857 = product of:
0.04025957 = sum of:
0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04025957 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to explore the possibilities of extending the use of structured abstracts (which use subheadings such as background, aims, participants method, results, conclusions) of the type often found in biomedical periodicals; to test whether or not such structured abstracts are more easily searched, comprehended and recalled than abstracts set in the traditional manner; and to examine readers' preferences for different typographic settings for structured abstracts. Results indicated: that it is possible to produce structured abstracts for periodical articles in the social sciences; and that such abstracts may be easier to read, search and recall than abstracts presented in the traditional manner. Suggests that abstracts use 6 subheadings (background, aims, method, results, conclusions, and, optionally, comment) and recommends that these subheadings are conveyed in bold capital letters and, ideally, set apart from the main text by printer's rules
