Search (4004 results, page 1 of 201)

0.18150827 = product of:
  0.36301655 = sum of:
    0.36301655 = sum of:
      0.32873031 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.32873031 = score(doc=7673,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          1.1374071 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = 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)

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

0.16322488 = product of:
  0.32644975 = sum of:
    0.32644975 = sum of:
      0.2578773 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2578773 = score(doc=891,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.89225554 = fieldWeight in 891, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=891)
      0.06857245 = weight(_text_:22 in 891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06857245 = score(doc=891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 891, 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=891)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 4.2002 13:36:22

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Classification systems of Chemical Abstracts and of corresponding parts of the database of VINITI

0.15376253 = product of:
  0.30752507 = sum of:
    0.30752507 = sum of:
      0.2526671 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2526671 = score(doc=2832,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.87422836 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
      0.054857958 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054857958 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = 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)

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

0.13966143 = product of:
  0.27932286 = sum of:
    0.27932286 = sum of:
      0.18234678 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18234678 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.63091993 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.09697609 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09697609 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Arranged according to subjects the bibliography lists 79 references,mostly with terse abstracts.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.13057989 = product of:
  0.26115978 = sum of:
    0.26115978 = sum of:
      0.20630182 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 4960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20630182 = score(doc=4960,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.7138044 = fieldWeight in 4960, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4960)
      0.054857958 = weight(_text_:22 in 4960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054857958 = score(doc=4960,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4960, 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=4960)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Provides a background to UMI, formerly known as University Microflims International. Describes ProQuest Direct, a new online service from UMI that merges indexing and abstracting. ASCII and image full text, wide subject coverage, and multiple document delivery options, into a uniform document search and delivery system. ProQuest covers nearly 4.000 titles and is a composite of UMI's electronic database including ABI/INFORM, Periodical Abstracts; Newspaper Abstracts, Business Dateline, Accounting and Tax Database, Banking Information Source, and Pharmaceitical News Index. Describes search methods and document delivery

Source

Information today. 13(1996) no.4, S.22-24

0.12997979 = product of:
  0.25995958 = sum of:
    0.25995958 = sum of:
      0.21881612 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21881612 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.7571039 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
      0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041143466 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = 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)

Abstract

Structured abstracts are abstracts which include subheadings such as: background, aims, participants methods and results. These are rapidly replacing traditional abstracts in medical periodicals, but the number and detail of the subheadings used varies, and there is a range of different typographic settings. Reviews a number of studies designed to investigate readers' preferences for different typographic settings and layout. Over 400 readers took part in the study: students; postgraduates; research workers and academics in the social sciences. The most preferred version emerged from the last of 3 studies and 2 additional studies were then carried out to determine preferences for the overall position and layout of this most preferred version on a A4 page. The most preferred version for the setting of the subheadings are printed in bold capital letters

Source

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

0.12545961 = product of:
  0.25091922 = sum of:
    0.25091922 = sum of:
      0.18234678 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18234678 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.63091993 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
      0.06857245 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06857245 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = 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)

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

0.119078055 = product of:
  0.23815611 = sum of:
    0.23815611 = sum of:
      0.2038699 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 5259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2038699 = score(doc=5259,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.70539 = fieldWeight in 5259, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5259)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 5259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=5259,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5259, 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=5259)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The increasing amount of publicly available literature and experimental data in biomedicine makes it hard for biomedical researchers to stay up-to-date. Genescene is a toolkit that will help alleviate this problem by providing an overview of published literature content. We combined a linguistic parser with Concept Space, a co-occurrence based semantic net. Both techniques extract complementary biomedical relations between noun phrases from MEDLINE abstracts. The parser extracts precise and semantically rich relations from individual abstracts. Concept Space extracts relations that hold true for the collection of abstracts. The Gene Ontology, the Human Genome Nomenclature, and the Unified Medical Language System, are also integrated in Genescene. Currently, they are used to facilitate the integration of the two relation types, and to select the more interesting and high-quality relations for presentation. A user study focusing on p53 literature is discussed. All MEDLINE abstracts discussing p53 were processed in Genescene. Two researchers evaluated the terms and relations from several abstracts of interest to them. The results show that the terms were precise (precision 93%) and relevant, as were the parser relations (precision 95%). The Concept Space relations were more precise when selected with ontological knowledge (precision 78%) than without (60%).

Date

22. 7.2006 14:26:01

0.119078055 = product of:
  0.23815611 = sum of:
    0.23815611 = sum of:
      0.2038699 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2038699 = score(doc=671,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.70539 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although it is commonly expected that the citation context of a reference is likely to provide more detailed and direct information about the nature of a citation, few studies in the literature have specifically addressed the extent to which the information in different parts of a scientific publication differs. Do abstracts tend to use conceptually broader terms than sentences in a citation context in the body of a publication? In this article, we propose a method to analyze and compare latent topics in scientific publications, in particular, from abstracts of papers that cited a target reference and from sentences that cited the target reference. We conducted an experiment and applied topical modeling techniques to full-text papers in eight biomedicine journals. Topics derived from the two sources are compared in terms of their similarities and broad-narrow relationships defined based on information entropy. The results show that abstracts and citation contexts are characterized by distinct sets of topics with moderate overlaps. Furthermore, the results confirm that topics from abstracts of citing papers have broader terms than topics from citation contexts formed by citing sentences. The method and the findings could be used to enhance and extend the current methodologies for research evaluation and citation evaluation.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:50:00

0.10315091 = product of:
  0.20630182 = sum of:
    0.20630182 = product of:
      0.41260365 = sum of:
        0.41260365 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 6180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.41260365 = score(doc=6180,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.4276088 = fieldWeight in 6180, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Chemical Abstracts

0.10095721 = sum of:
  0.08038548 = product of:
    0.24115643 = sum of:
      0.24115643 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24115643 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4290902 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020571733 = product of:
    0.041143466 = sum of:
      0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041143466 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.10036769 = product of:
  0.20073538 = sum of:
    0.20073538 = sum of:
      0.14587742 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14587742 = score(doc=4824,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.50473595 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
      0.054857958 = weight(_text_:22 in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054857958 = score(doc=4824,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4824, 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=4824)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the InfoAccess Project at the Univ of Saskatchewan Libraries which compared searching of manual and automated indexes by 22 undergraduate psychology students to determine their searching preferences by ranking 'Psychological abstracts' in 3 formats: print, CD-ROM and a locally mounted tape service called InfoAccess. Their satisfaction regarding the physical environment, equipment, and instructional aids was also recorded. Users preferred to search with CD-ROM, but found InfoAccess to be an acceptable alternative

0.10036769 = product of:
  0.20073538 = sum of:
    0.20073538 = sum of:
      0.14587742 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 4226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14587742 = score(doc=4226,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.50473595 = fieldWeight in 4226, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4226)
      0.054857958 = weight(_text_:22 in 4226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054857958 = score(doc=4226,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4226, 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=4226)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

State of the art review of the historical development of information science as deemed to be covered by the particular interests of memebers of the American Society for Information Science, as defined as the representation, storage, transmission, selection, retrieval, filtering, and use of documents and messages. Arranges the references cited roughly according to the classification scheme used by Information Science Abstracts, and so uses the headings: background; information science; techniques and technology; information related behaviour; application areas; social aspects; education for information science; institutions; individuals; geographical areas; and conclusions

Date

13. 6.1996 19:22:20

0.10036769 = product of:
  0.20073538 = sum of:
    0.20073538 = sum of:
      0.14587742 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14587742 = score(doc=6599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.50473595 = fieldWeight in 6599, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6599)
      0.054857958 = weight(_text_:22 in 6599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054857958 = score(doc=6599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6599, 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=6599)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the onset of the information explosion arising from digital libraries and access to a wealth of information through the Internet, the need to efficiently determine the relevance of a document becomes even more urgent. Describes a text extraction system (TES), which retrieves a set of sentences from a document to form an indicative abstract. Such an automated process enables information to be filtered more quickly. Discusses the combination of various text extraction techniques. Compares results with manually produced abstracts

Date

26. 2.1997 10:22:43

0.10036769 = product of:
  0.20073538 = sum of:
    0.20073538 = sum of:
      0.14587742 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14587742 = score(doc=3034,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.50473595 = fieldWeight in 3034, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3034)
      0.054857958 = weight(_text_:22 in 3034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054857958 = score(doc=3034,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3034, 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=3034)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Drei Jahre nach der siebten Million hat Inspec, die führende Datenbank auf dem Gebiet der Physik, Elektrotechnik, Elektronik und Informatik, den 8-millionsten Datensatz aufgenommen. Für den Herbst 2004 hat Inspec angekündigt, sein Archiv (Science Abstracts 1898 - 1968) aufzulegen und anzubieten. Es wird etwa 800.000 Einträge enthalten."

Source

Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.80, S.22 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.3/4]

0.094750166 = product of:
  0.18950033 = sum of:
    0.18950033 = product of:
      0.37900066 = sum of:
        0.37900066 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37900066 = score(doc=2350,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.3113425 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reviews the main features of the Dissertation Abstracts OnDisc CD-ROM database with particular attention focused on the ProQuest software

Object

Dissertation Abstracts

0.094750166 = product of:
  0.18950033 = sum of:
    0.18950033 = product of:
      0.37900066 = sum of:
        0.37900066 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37900066 = score(doc=592,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.3113425 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Computer Abstracts is a CD-ROM database containing detailed abstracts taken from over 2.000 computing and IT journals. Discusses the scope and quality of information, ease of use, and value for money

Object

Computer Abstracts

0.09117339 = product of:
  0.18234678 = sum of:
    0.18234678 = product of:
      0.36469355 = sum of:
        0.36469355 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 6767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.36469355 = score(doc=6767,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.2618399 = fieldWeight in 6767, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The H.W. Wilson Company announce their new full text CD-ROM database: World Authors 1900-1950, Readers' Guide for Young People, Current Biography; Full Service; and 4 new full text CD-ROM databases: Wilson Business Abstracts; Wilson General Science Abstracts; Wilson Humanities Abstracts; and Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts

0.09025705 = product of:
  0.1805141 = sum of:
    0.1805141 = product of:
      0.3610282 = sum of:
        0.3610282 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3610282 = score(doc=96,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.2491578 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Chemical Abstracts

0.09025705 = product of:
  0.1805141 = sum of:
    0.1805141 = product of:
      0.3610282 = sum of:
        0.3610282 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3610282 = score(doc=3677,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.2491578 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Compares formats and linguistic devices of German abstracts and their English equivalents, written by German medical scholars to English native speakers. The source is 20 abstracts taken from German medical journals representing different degrees of specialism. The analysis includes: the overall length of articles/abstracts; the representation/arrangement of sections; the linguistic devices. Results show no correlation between the length of articles and the length of abstracts. In contrast to native speaking author abstracts, 'background information' predominated in the structure of the studied German non-native speaker abstracts, whereas 'purpose of study' and 'conclusions' were not clearly stated. In linguistic terms, the German abstracts frequently contained lexical hegdes, complex and enumerating sentence structure; passive voice and post tense as well as various types of linking structures