Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996) 0.03 
    0.033387464 = product of:
  0.08346866 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=7244,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Considers the principles of indexing and the intellectual skills involved in order to determine what automatic indexing systems would be required in order to supplant or complement the human indexer. Good indexing requires: considerable prior knowledge of the literature; judgement as to what to index and what depth to index; reading skills; abstracting skills; and classification skills, Illustrates these features with a detailed description of abstracting and indexing processes involved in generating entries for the mechanical engineering database POWERLINK. Briefly assesses the possibility of replacing human indexers with specialist indexing software, with particular reference to the Object Analyzer from the InTEXT automatic indexing system and using the criteria described for human indexers. At present, it is unlikely that the automatic indexer will replace the human indexer, but when more primary texts are available in electronic form, it may be a useful productivity tool for dealing with large quantities of low grade texts (should they be wanted in the database)
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
  2. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.03 
    0.027822888 = product of:
  0.06955722 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=7673,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Reports results of 2 studies to determine if structured abstracts offer any advantage to users in terms of whether they are easier to search. In study 1, using a specially prepared electronic database of abstracts in either their original format or the structured format, 52 users were asked to find the answers to 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts in traditional format followed by 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts set in the structured format. Time and error data were recorded automatically. In study 2, using a printed database, 56 users were asked to to find 5 abstracts that reprted a particular kind of study and then find 5 more references that reported another kind of study. In study 1 users performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts but there were some unexplainable practice effects. In study 2, the users again performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts. However, there were asymmetrical transfer effects: users who responded first to the structured abstracts responded more quickly to the following traditional abstracts than did those users who responded first to the traditional abstracts. Nevertheless, the overall findings support the hypothesis that it is easier for user to search structured abstracts than it is to search traditional abstracts
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
  3. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.01 
    0.014161265 = product of:
  0.070806324 = sum of:
    0.070806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070806324 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    27. 1.1996 18:22:06
  4. Hartley, J.: Do structured abstracts take more space? : And does it matter? (2002) 0.01 
    0.013524316 = product of:
  0.06762158 = sum of:
    0.06762158 = weight(_text_:it in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06762158 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44737396 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  5. Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988) 0.01 
    0.011329013 = product of:
  0.05664506 = sum of:
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308
  6. Parekh, R.L.: Advanced indexing and abstracting practices (2000) 0.01 
    0.010039202 = product of:
  0.050196007 = sum of:
    0.050196007 = weight(_text_:it in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050196007 = score(doc=119,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.33208904 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  7. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008) 0.01 
    0.009660226 = product of:
  0.04830113 = sum of:
    0.04830113 = weight(_text_:it in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04830113 = score(doc=2362,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31955284 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  8. Koltay, T.: Abstracting: information literacy on a professional level (2009) 0.01 
    0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=3610,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  9. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.01 
    0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
  10. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.01 
    0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  11. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Summarizing information (1998) 0.01 
    0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Summarizing is the process of reducing the large information size of something like a novel or a scientific paper to a short summary or abstract comprising only the most essential points. Summarizing is frequent in everyday communication, but it is also a professional skill for journalists and others. Automated summarizing functions are urgently needed by Internet users who wish to avoid being overwhelmed by information. This book presents the state of the art and surveys related research; it deals with everyday and professional summarizing as well as computerized approaches. The author focuses in detail on the cognitive pro-cess involved in summarizing and supports this with a multimedia simulation systems on the accompanying CD-ROM
  12. Montesi, M.; Urdiciain, B.G.: Recent linguistic research into author abstracts : its value for information science (2005) 0.01 
    0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper is a review of genre analysis of author abstracts carried out in the area of English for Special Purposes (ESP) since 1990. Given the descriptive character of such analysis, it can be valuable for Information Science (IS), as it provides a picture of the variation in author abstracts, depending an the discipline, culture and language of the author, and the envisaged context. The authors claim that such knowledge can be useful for information professionals who need to revise author abstracts, or use them for other activities in the organization of knowledge, such as subject analysis and control of vocabulary. With this purpose in mind, we summarize various findings of ESP research. We describe how abstracts vary in structure, content and discourse, and how linguists explain such variations. Other factors taken into account are the stylistic and discoursal features of the abstract, lexical choices, and the possible sources of blas. In conclusion, we show how such findings can have practical and theoretical implications for IS.
  13. Farrow, J.: All in the mind : concept analysis in indexing (1995) 0.01 
    0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=2926,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The indexing process consists of the comprehension of the document to be indexed, followed by the production of a set of index terms. Differences between academic indexing and back-of-the-book indexing are discussed. Text comprehension is a branch of human information processing, and it is argued that the model of text comprehension and production debeloped by van Dijk and Kintsch can form the basis for a cognitive process model of indexing. Strategies for testing such a model are suggested
  14. Booth, A.; O'Rouke, A.J.: ¬The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE (1997) 0.01 
    0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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
  15. Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? (1997) 0.01 
    0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  16. Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998) 0.01 
    0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  17. Wang, F.L.; Yang, C.C.: ¬The impact analysis of language differences on an automatic multilingual text summarization system (2006) 0.01 
    0.006830811 = product of:
  0.034154054 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=5049,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  18. Montesi, M.; Mackenzie Owen, J.: Revision of author abstracts : how it is carried out by LISA editors (2007) 0.01 
    0.006830811 = product of:
  0.034154054 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=807,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The literature on abstracts recommends the revision of author supplied abstracts before their inclusion in database collections. However, little guidance is given on how to carry out such revision, and few studies exist on this topic. The purpose of this research paper is to first survey 187 bibliographic databases to ascertain how many did revise abstracts, and then study the practical amendments made by one of these, i.e. LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts). Design/methodology/approach - Database policies were established by e-mail or through alternative sources, with 136 databases out of 187 exhaustively documented. Differences between 100 author-supplied abstracts and the corresponding 100 LISA amended abstracts were classified into sentence-level and beyond sentence-level categories, and then as additions, deletions and rephrasing of text. Findings - Revision of author abstracts was carried out by 66 databases, but in just 32 cases did it imply more than spelling, shortening of length and formula representation. In LISA, amendments were often non-systematic and inconsistent, but still pointed to significant aspects which were discussed. Originality/value - Amendments made by LISA editors are important in multi- and inter-disciplinary research, since they tend to clarify certain aspects such as terminology, and suggest that abstracts should not always be considered as substitutes for the original document. From this point-of-view, the revision of abstracts can be considered as an important factor in enhancing a database's quality.
  19. Alonso, M.I.; Fernández, L.M.M.: Perspectives of studies on document abstracting : towards an integrated view of models and theoretical approaches (2010) 0.01 
    0.006830811 = product of:
  0.034154054 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=3959,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  20. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Ziegert, C.: SummIt-BMT : (Summarize It in BMT) in Diagnose und Therapie, Abschlussbericht (2002) 0.01 
    0.006830811 = product of:
  0.034154054 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=4497,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    SummIt-BMT (Summarize It in Bone Marrow Transplantation) - das Zielsystem des Projektes - soll Ärzten in der Knochenmarktransplantation durch kognitiv fundiertes Zusammenfassen (Endres-Niggemeyer, 1998) aus dem WWW eine schnelle Informationsaufnahme ermöglichen. Im bmbffinanzierten Teilprojekt, über das hier zu berichten ist, liegt der Schwerpunkt auf den klinischen Fragestellungen. SummIt-BMT hat als zentrale Komponente eine KMT-Ontologie. Den Systemablauf veranschaulicht Abb. 1: Benutzer geben ihren Informationsbedarf in ein strukturiertes Szenario ein. Sie ziehen dazu Begriffe aus der Ontologie heran. Aus dem Szenario werden Fragen an Suchmaschinen abgeleitet. Die Summit-BMT-Metasuchmaschine stößt Google an und sucht in Medline, der zentralen Literaturdatenbank der Medizin. Das Suchergebnis wird aufbereitet. Dabei werden Links zu Volltexten verfolgt und die Volltexte besorgt. Die beschafften Dokumente werden mit einem Schlüsselwortretrieval auf Passagen untersucht, in denen sich Suchkonzepte aus der Frage / Ontologie häufen. Diese Passagen werden zum Zusammenfassen vorgeschlagen. In ihnen werden die Aussagen syntaktisch analysiert. Die Systemagenten untersuchen sie. Lassen Aussagen sich mit einer semantischen Relation an die Frage anbinden, tragen also zur deren Beantwortung bei, werden sie in die Zusammenfassung aufgenommen, es sei denn, andere Agenten machen Hinderungsgründe geltend, z.B. Redundanz. Das Ergebnis der Zusammenfassung wird in das Frage/Antwort-Szenario integriert. Präsentiert werden Exzerpte aus den Quelldokumenten. Mit einem Link vermitteln sie einen sofortigen Rückgriff auf die Quelle. SummIt-BMT ist zum nächsten Durchgang von Informationssuche und Zusammenfassung bereit, sobald der Benutzer dies wünscht.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 26
  • d 4

Types

  • a 26
  • m 2
  • r 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects