Search (695 results, page 1 of 35)

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

0.08038548 = product of:
  0.16077095 = sum of:
    0.16077095 = product of:
      0.48231286 = sum of:
        0.48231286 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.48231286 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4290902 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.07688127 = product of:
  0.15376253 = sum of:
    0.15376253 = sum of:
      0.12633355 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12633355 = score(doc=1454,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.43711418 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
      0.027428979 = weight(_text_:22 in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027428979 = score(doc=1454,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The present paper aims to analyze the treatment to the contents of theatrical texts under the Knowledge Organization perspective, searching for a way to facilitate and the access to the contents of type of text. The article presents the concept of information, deals with document abstract as tool to recuperate information, provides the free consultation to the content of a document even before reaching the wanted result, once the abstract is well formulated it can replace the consultation of the original document, and it also helps the searching process to attain more accurate and proper results for each user. The paper takes into consideration the importance of the different types of documents to recover information, and points out that in the literature there is not a particular methodology to prepare abstracts of theater plays. Therefore, it analyzes the norms from the Associação Brasileira de NormasTécnicas (ABNT), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to elaborate an abstract, with the scope to verify if their norms comply with the needs of a theatrical text, once the general overview of such norms may not be enough to comprise all the information that a theatrical text must contain. The main characteristics of the theatrical text are also discussed, presenting the main elements in the text with a methodological proposal on how to elaborate its abstract. The analysis of the theatrical text only takes into consideration the written text, disregarding the issues related the theatrical staging, even considering that there are elements in this type of text that are tools that help the staging , such elements are not analyzed for the purposes of this paper. It discuss the theatrical text according to its peculiarities, which makes it different form scientific or literary texts, in order to summon the fundamental information to elaborate the abstract under the perspective of organizing the information contained in this type of document. A proposal of a methodological construction for theatrical texts is suggested, in order to align the elements from the documentary abstracts and from the peculiarity of a theatrical text. The results from this research indicate that the elements to be included in the abstracts of theatrical plays are the identification of the main characters, the events that are relevant for the plot and its closing.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.075275764 = product of:
  0.15055153 = sum of:
    0.15055153 = sum of:
      0.10940806 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10940806 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.37855196 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
      0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041143466 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1443, 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=1443)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Terms chosen to represent document subjects, the classification notations assigned to them, the abstracts and indices contain biases in two contexts. In a negative context, document surrogates are constructed with bias when they leave out diverse features, disenfranchise groups and topics outside an accepted norm (Olson, 2002). In this way, these document surrogates would convey inclinations, or prejudices. In a positive context, slanting or tendency (Hjørland, 2008a, McIlwaine, 2003) conveyed by the document surrogates to ensure specificity to particular discursive communities or knowledge domains can be observed. Considering that topics related to biases are scarce in the Information Organization literature, this paper proposes a discussion on the characteristics and occurrences of bias in subject representation. This study is exploratory and bibliographic, and adopts an inductive method.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.075275764 = product of:
  0.15055153 = sum of:
    0.15055153 = sum of:
      0.10940806 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10940806 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.37855196 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
      0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041143466 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A naïve user seeking introductory information on a topic may perceive a domain as it is shown by the search results in a database; however, inconsistencies in indexing can misrepresent the full picture of the domain by including irrelevant documents or omitting relevant ones, sometimes inexplicably. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on the domain of ethics in knowledge organization in the World of Science (WoS) and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) databases to discern how it is being presented by search results in those databases and to attempt to determine why inconsistencies occurred.

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.075275764 = product of:
  0.15055153 = sum of:
    0.15055153 = sum of:
      0.10940806 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10940806 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.37855196 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
      0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041143466 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.07207889 = product of:
  0.14415778 = sum of:
    0.14415778 = product of:
      0.28831556 = sum of:
        0.28831556 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28831556 = score(doc=3028,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.997572 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Scientific abstracts reproduce only part of the information and the complexity of argumentation in a scientific article. The purpose of this paper provides a first analysis of the similarity between the text of scientific abstracts and the body of articles, using sentences as the basic textual unit. It contributes to the understanding of the structure of abstracts. Design/methodology/approach - Using sentence-based similarity metrics, the authors quantify the phenomenon of text re-use in abstracts and examine the positions of the sentences that are similar to sentences in abstracts in the introduction, methods, results and discussion structure, using a corpus of over 85,000 research articles published in the seven Public Library of Science journals. Findings - The authors provide evidence that 84 percent of abstract have at least one sentence in common with the body of the paper. Studying the distributions of sentences in the body of the articles that are re-used in abstracts, the authors show that there exists a strong relation between the rhetorical structure of articles and the zones that authors re-use when writing abstracts, with sentences mainly coming from the beginning of the introduction and the end of the conclusion. Originality/value - Scientific abstracts contain what is considered by the author(s) as information that best describe documents' content. This is a first study that examines the relation between the contents of abstracts and the rhetorical structure of scientific articles. The work might provide new insight for improving automatic abstracting tools as well as information retrieval approaches, in which text organization and structure are important features.

0.0669879 = product of:
  0.1339758 = sum of:
    0.1339758 = product of:
      0.4019274 = sum of:
        0.4019274 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4019274 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4290902 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.062729806 = product of:
  0.12545961 = sum of:
    0.12545961 = sum of:
      0.09117339 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09117339 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.31545997 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

0.062729806 = product of:
  0.12545961 = sum of:
    0.12545961 = sum of:
      0.09117339 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09117339 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.31545997 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:21:46

0.06116097 = product of:
  0.12232194 = sum of:
    0.12232194 = product of:
      0.24464388 = sum of:
        0.24464388 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24464388 = score(doc=3981,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.846468 = fieldWeight in 3981, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3981)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the interest of standardization and quality assurance, it is desirable for authors and staff of access services to follow the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guidelines in preparing abstracts. Using the statistical approach an extraction system (the Abstraction Assistant) was developed to generate informative abstracts to meet the ANSI guidelines for structural content elements. The system performance is evaluated by comparing the system-generated abstracts with the author's original abstracts and the manually enhanced system abstracts on three criteria: balance (satisfaction of the ANSI standards), fluency (text coherence), and understandability (clarity). The results suggest that it is possible to use the system output directly without manual modification, but there are issues that need to be addressed in further studies to make the system a better tool.

0.055832066 = product of:
  0.11166413 = sum of:
    0.11166413 = product of:
      0.22332826 = sum of:
        0.22332826 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 4125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22332826 = score(doc=4125,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.7727159 = fieldWeight in 4125, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Despite their changing role, abstracts remain useful in the digital world. Aimed at both information professionals and researchers who work and publish in different fields, this book summarizes the most important and up-to-date theory of abstracting, as well as giving advice and examples for the practice of writing different kinds of abstracts. The book discusses the length, the functions and basic structure of abstracts. A new approach is outlined on the questions of informative and indicative abstracts. The abstractors' personality, their linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge and skills are also discussed with special attention. The process of abstracting, its steps and models, as well as recipient's role are treated with special distinction. Abstracting is presented as an aimed (purported) understanding of the original text, its interpretation and then a special projection of the information deemed to be worth of abstracting into a new text.Despite the relatively large number of textbooks on the topic there is no up-to-date book on abstracting in the English language. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of the topic, the proposed book contains novel views - especially on informative and indicative abstracts. The discussion is based on an interdisciplinary approach, blending the methods of library and information science and linguistics. The book strives to a synthesis of theory and practice. The synthesis is based on a large and existing body of knowledge which, however, is often characterised by misleading terminology and flawed beliefs.

0.046891533 = product of:
  0.093783066 = sum of:
    0.093783066 = product of:
      0.28134918 = sum of:
        0.28134918 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28134918 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4290902 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.045586694 = product of:
  0.09117339 = sum of:
    0.09117339 = product of:
      0.18234678 = sum of:
        0.18234678 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 5153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18234678 = score(doc=5153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.63091993 = fieldWeight in 5153, 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=5153)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wissensrepräsentation thematisiert die Erstellung von Stellvertretern (Repräsentanten bzw. Surrogaten), die die Aboutness eines Dokuments abbilden. Man unterscheidet bei der Wissensrepräsentation zwischen Informationsfiltern (z.B. Wissensordnungen) und Methoden der Informationsverdichtung (z.B. Extracts oder Abstracts).

0.044665653 = product of:
  0.08933131 = sum of:
    0.08933131 = product of:
      0.17866261 = sum of:
        0.17866261 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17866261 = score(doc=3949,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.61817276 = fieldWeight in 3949, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The object of this study is to develop methods for automatically annotating the argumentative role of sentences in scientific abstracts. Working from Medline abstracts, sentences were classified into four major argumentative roles: objective, method, result, and conclusion. The idea is that, if the role of each sentence can be marked up, then these metadata can be used during information retrieval to seek particular types of information such as novelty, conclusions, methodologies, aims/goals of a scientific piece of work. Design/methodology/approach - Two approaches were tested: linguistic cues and positional heuristics. Linguistic cues are lexico-syntactic patterns modelled as regular expressions implemented in a linguistic parser. Positional heuristics make use of the relative position of a sentence in the abstract to deduce its argumentative class. Findings - The experiments showed that positional heuristics attained a much higher degree of accuracy on Medline abstracts with an F-score of 64 per cent, whereas the linguistic cues only attained an F-score of 12 per cent. This is mostly because sentences from different argumentative roles are not always announced by surface linguistic cues. Research limitations/implications - A limitation to the study was the inability to test other methods to perform this task such as machine learning techniques which have been reported to perform better on Medline abstracts. Also, to compare the results of the study with earlier studies using Medline abstracts, the different argumentative roles present in Medline had to be mapped on to four major argumentative roles. This may have favourably biased the performance of the sentence classification by positional heuristics. Originality/value - To the best of one's knowledge, this study presents the first instance of evaluating linguistic cues and positional heuristics on the same corpus.

0.04019274 = product of:
  0.08038548 = sum of:
    0.08038548 = product of:
      0.24115643 = sum of:
        0.24115643 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24115643 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4290902 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, 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=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.04019274 = product of:
  0.08038548 = sum of:
    0.08038548 = product of:
      0.24115643 = sum of:
        0.24115643 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24115643 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4290902 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.039479237 = product of:
  0.078958474 = sum of:
    0.078958474 = product of:
      0.15791695 = sum of:
        0.15791695 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15791695 = score(doc=5310,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.54639274 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The novelty of knowledge claims in a research paper can be considered an evaluation criterion for papers to supplement citations. To provide a foundation for research evaluation from the perspective of innovativeness, we propose an automatic approach for extracting innovative ideas from the abstracts of technology and engineering papers. The approach extracts N-grams as candidates based on part-of-speech tagging and determines whether they are novel by checking the Scopus® database to determine whether they had ever been presented previously. Moreover, we discussed the distributions of innovative ideas in different abstract structures. To improve the performance by excluding noisy N-grams, a list of stopwords and a list of research description characteristics were developed. We selected abstracts of articles published from 2011 to 2017 with the topic of semantic analysis as the experimental texts. Excluding noisy N-grams, considering the distribution of innovative ideas in abstracts, and suitably combining N-grams can effectively improve the performance of automatic innovative idea extraction. Unlike co-word and co-citation analysis, innovative-idea extraction aims to identify the differences in a paper from all previously published papers.

0.03868159 = product of:
  0.07736318 = sum of:
    0.07736318 = product of:
      0.15472636 = sum of:
        0.15472636 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15472636 = score(doc=2700,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.5353533 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The volume of entity-centric structured data grows rapidly on the Web. The description of an entity, composed of property-value pairs (a.k.a. features), has become very large in many applications. To avoid information overload, efforts have been made to automatically select a limited number of features to be shown to the user based on certain criteria, which is called automatic entity summarization. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of extensive studies on how humans rank and select features in practice, which can provide empirical support and inspire future research. In this article, we present a large-scale statistical analysis of the descriptions of entities provided by DBpedia and the abstracts of their corresponding Wikipedia articles, to empirically study, along several different dimensions, which kinds of features are preferable when humans summarize. Implications for automatic entity summarization are drawn from the findings.

0.036469355 = product of:
  0.07293871 = sum of:
    0.07293871 = product of:
      0.14587742 = sum of:
        0.14587742 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14587742 = score(doc=2102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.50473595 = fieldWeight in 2102, 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=2102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Under the broad title Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization, 54 papers were presented in 12 categories. This analysis is based on the published volume. It also contains abstracts for 10 poster sessions but these will not be analysed here (Bericht über die Tagung mit einer Zusammenfassung der Vorträge).