Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.11610073 = product of:
  0.1741511 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
    0.11863822 = sum of:
      0.0775097 = weight(_text_:database in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0775097 = score(doc=7244,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.37897915 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
      0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041128512 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.103747025 = product of:
  0.15562053 = sum of:
    0.12820151 = weight(_text_:reference in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12820151 = score(doc=2832,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.62283933 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
    0.02741901 = product of:
      0.05483802 = sum of:
        0.05483802 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05483802 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reference librarians, who are thoroughly familiar with the purpose, scope and arrangement of abstract periodicals, are uniquely qualified for the task of writing abstracts. The procedures described here offer a relatively simple way for them to write acceptable abstracts from the outset. Although research is being conducted in the area of machine generated abstracts, there wll continue to be a role for human abstractors.

Source

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

0.08453016 = product of:
  0.12679523 = sum of:
    0.09252147 = weight(_text_:reference in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09252147 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.44949555 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
    0.034273762 = product of:
      0.068547525 = sum of:
        0.068547525 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068547525 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses briefly the application of hypertext in library user training with particular reference to a specific hypertext based tutorial designed to teach library school students the basics knowledge of abstracts and abstracting process

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

0.03295506 = product of:
  0.09886518 = sum of:
    0.09886518 = sum of:
      0.064591415 = weight(_text_:database in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064591415 = score(doc=7673,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.31581596 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
      0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034273762 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.023829866 = product of:
  0.071489595 = sum of:
    0.071489595 = product of:
      0.14297919 = sum of:
        0.14297919 = weight(_text_:database in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14297919 = score(doc=3295,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.6990884 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on one area of research in an Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) MODELS (MOving to Distributed Environments for Library Services) supporting study in 3 investigative areas: examination of current database producers' guidelines for their abstract writers; a brief survey of abstracts in some traditional online databases; and a detailed survey of abstracts from 3 types of electronic database (print sourced online databases, Internet subject trees or directories, and Internet gateways). Examination of database producers' guidelines, reported here, gave a clear view of the intentions behind professionally produced traditional (printed index based) database abstracts and provided a benchmark against which to judge the conclusions of the larger investigations into abstract style, readability and content

0.012918284 = product of:
  0.03875485 = sum of:
    0.03875485 = product of:
      0.0775097 = sum of:
        0.0775097 = weight(_text_:database in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0775097 = score(doc=824,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.37897915 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.012918284 = product of:
  0.03875485 = sum of:
    0.03875485 = product of:
      0.0775097 = sum of:
        0.0775097 = weight(_text_:database in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0775097 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.37897915 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.012179474 = product of:
  0.036538422 = sum of:
    0.036538422 = product of:
      0.073076844 = sum of:
        0.073076844 = weight(_text_:database in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073076844 = score(doc=684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.35730496 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.010765236 = product of:
  0.032295708 = sum of:
    0.032295708 = product of:
      0.064591415 = sum of:
        0.064591415 = weight(_text_:database in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064591415 = score(doc=807,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.31581596 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.01065704 = product of:
  0.03197112 = sum of:
    0.03197112 = product of:
      0.06394224 = sum of:
        0.06394224 = weight(_text_:database in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06394224 = score(doc=430,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.31264183 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to determine how easy and quickly research articles in library and information science could be retrieved from the LISA Plus CD-ROM database. Results show that the search with the descriptor 'research' retrieves all types of articles and it is necessary to read through every abstract to locate the research articles. The introductory sentence of a substantial number of abstracts hinder the process of identification since the sentence provides such information as the conference where the paper was presented, the special issue or the section of a periodical where the article is located; or obvious background information. Suggests measures whereby research articles can be identified easily and rapidly

0.006854752 = product of:
  0.020564256 = sum of:
    0.020564256 = product of:
      0.041128512 = sum of:
        0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041128512 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.006854752 = product of:
  0.020564256 = sum of:
    0.020564256 = product of:
      0.041128512 = sum of:
        0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041128512 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.006089737 = product of:
  0.018269211 = sum of:
    0.018269211 = product of:
      0.036538422 = sum of:
        0.036538422 = weight(_text_:database in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036538422 = score(doc=5603,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.17865248 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure of a small number of abstracts that have appeared in the CABI database over a number of years, during which time the authorship of the abstracts changed from CABI editorial staff to journal article authors themselves. This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology in an effort to discover whether these abstracts followed generally agreed abstracting guidelines. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted was a move analysis of the text of the abstracts. This move analysis revealed a five-move pattern: move 1 situates the research within the scientific community; move 2 introduces the research by either describing the main features of the research or presenting its purpose; move 3 describes the methodology; move 4 states the results; and move 5 draws conclusions or suggests practical applications. Findings - Thematic analysis shows that scientific abstract authors thematise their subject by referring to the discourse domain or the "real" world. Not all of the abstracts succeeded in following the guideline advice. However, there was general consistency regarding semantic organisation and thematic structure. Research limitations/implications - The research limitations were the small number of abstracts examined, from just one subject domain. Practical limitations - The practical implications are the need for abstracting services to be clearer and more prescriptive regarding how they want abstracts to be structured as the lack of formal training in abstract writing increases the risk of subjectivity and verbosity and reduces clarity in scientific abstracts. Another implication of the research are that abstracting and indexing services must ensure that they maintain abstract quality if they introduce policies of accepting author abstracts. This is important as there is probably little formal training in abstract writing for science students at present. Recommendations for further research are made. Originality/value - This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology.