Search (1537 results, page 1 of 77)

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

0.13057989 = 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

0.10036769 = 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

0.094750166 = 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

0.08933131 = product of:
  0.17866261 = sum of:
    0.17866261 = product of:
      0.35732523 = sum of:
        0.35732523 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35732523 = score(doc=5026,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.2363455 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Abstracts enable users to judge the relevance of articles, provide a summary and may be a substitute for the original document. Defines abstracts and considers who they are written be according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other sources. Distinguishes between indicative and informative abstracts. Informative abstracts are preferred by ANSI and ERIC. Discusses the content and procedures for abstracting, writing style, tests of quality and readability and informativeness. Presents statistics analyzing abstracts from 3 general interest databases and on abstract length and type

0.08933131 = product of:
  0.17866261 = sum of:
    0.17866261 = product of:
      0.35732523 = sum of:
        0.35732523 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35732523 = score(doc=2749,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.2363455 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Structured abstracts have now become widespread in medical research journals. Considers whether or not such structured abstracts can be used effectively in social science journals. Reviews a a selection of studies to see if structured abstracts written for social science journals are more informative, easier to read and easier to search than their traditional equivalents. Results suggest that structured abstracts are appropriate for social science journals. Editors of social science journals should consider adopting structured abstracts

0.08933131 = product of:
  0.17866261 = sum of:
    0.17866261 = product of:
      0.35732523 = sum of:
        0.35732523 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35732523 = score(doc=2999,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.2363455 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to consider whether or not structured abstracts can be used efectively in non medical science periodicals. Reviews a selection of studies on structured abstracts from the medical and psychological literature, presents examples of structured abstracts published in non medical science periodicals and considers how original abstracts might be written in a structured form for these periodicals. Concludes that, in light of these example studies, editors of these periodicals should consider the value of adopting structured abstracts

0.08782172 = product of:
  0.17564344 = sum of:
    0.17564344 = sum of:
      0.12764274 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12764274 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.44164395 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
      0.048000712 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048000712 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A known-item search for abstracts to previously retrieved references revealed that 2 documents from the same annual volume had been indexed twice. Working from the premise that the whole volume may have been double-indexed, a search strategy was devised that limited the journal code to the year in question. 57 references were retrieved, comprising 28 pairs of duplicates plus a citation for the whole volume. Author, title, source and descriptors were requested off-line and the citations were paired with their duplicates. The 4 categories of descriptors-major descriptors, minor descriptors, subheadings and check-tags-were compared for depth and consistency of indexing and lessons that might be learnt from the study are discussed.

Source

Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26

0.08782172 = product of:
  0.17564344 = sum of:
    0.17564344 = sum of:
      0.12764274 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12764274 = score(doc=530,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.44164395 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
      0.048000712 = weight(_text_:22 in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048000712 = score(doc=530,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes an application of Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, in HIRMA (Hypertextual Information Retrieval Managed by ARIOSTO), to the problem of document indexing by referring to a system which incorporates natural language processing techniques to determine the subject of the text of documents and to associate them with relevant semantic indexes. Describes briefly the overall system, details of its implementation on a corpus of scientific abstracts related to environmental topics and experimental evidence of the system's behaviour. Analyzes in detail an experiment designed to evaluate the system's retrieval ability in terms of recall and precision

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.1, S.17-28

0.08782172 = product of:
  0.17564344 = sum of:
    0.17564344 = sum of:
      0.12764274 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12764274 = score(doc=3647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.44164395 = fieldWeight in 3647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3647)
      0.048000712 = weight(_text_:22 in 3647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048000712 = score(doc=3647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3647)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The days of the traditional abstracting and indexing services are waning, as abstracts and bibliographic data become commodities. However, there are tremedous opportunities for those organizations willing to look beyond the status quo to the new possibilities enabled by the latest wave of advanced technologies. Those who own content need to focus on the delivery mechanisms and new markets that technology can provide. Features like automatic extraction of key concepts or names, collaborative filtering to help with trend analysis, and visualization techniques can take information past the retrieval stage and into the management area

Source

Database. 21(1998) no.4, S.18-22

0.08205604 = product of:
  0.16411208 = sum of:
    0.16411208 = product of:
      0.32822415 = sum of:
        0.32822415 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32822415 = score(doc=2383,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.1356558 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.08205604 = product of:
  0.16411208 = sum of:
    0.16411208 = product of:
      0.32822415 = sum of:
        0.32822415 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32822415 = score(doc=824,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.1356558 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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