Search (4004 results, page 2 of 201)

0.09025705 = product of:
  0.1805141 = sum of:
    0.1805141 = product of:
      0.3610282 = sum of:
        0.3610282 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 6090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3610282 = score(doc=6090,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.2491578 = fieldWeight in 6090, 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=6090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines the content description of fictional works, specifically novels. The data for the empirical part of the study was gathered in Finnish public libraries. The aim of the study is to find out how library clients and library professionals of public libraries describe novels by abstracting them - what are differences in their characterisations and what are the similarities between their abstracts. Also, a taxonomy of novel abstracts is given. The abstracts are classified into four categories in the taxonomy: plot or thematic abstracts, cultural-historical abstracts, subjective or personal abstracts and critical abstracts. In the final portion of the paper, a model for a search and retrieval system for fiction is presented.

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

0.08413102 = sum of:
  0.0669879 = product of:
    0.2009637 = sum of:
      0.2009637 = weight(_text_:3a in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2009637 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4290902 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 3577, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3577)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017143112 = product of:
    0.034286223 = sum of:
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Agrarwissenschaften 1981. - 3. Allgemeine Geographie 2.1972. - 3a. Allgemeine Naturwissenschaften 1.1973. - 4. Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 2.1971. - 6. Allgemeines. 5.1983. - 7. Anglistik 3.1976. - 8. Astronomie, Geodäsie 4.1977. - 12. bio Biologie, bcp Biochemie-Biophysik, bot Botanik, zoo Zoologie 1981. - 13. Bremensien 3.1983. - 13a. Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 3.1975. - 14. Chemie 4.1977. - 14a. Elektrotechnik 1974. - 15 Ethnologie 2.1976. - 16,1. Geowissenschaften. Sachteil 3.1977. - 16,2. Geowissenschaften. Regionaler Teil 3.1977. - 17. Germanistik 6.1984. - 17a,1. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hil. - 17a,2. Geschichte. Teilsystematik his Neuere Geschichte. - 17a,3. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hit Neueste Geschichte. - 18. Humanbiologie 2.1983. - 19. Ingenieurwissenschaften 1974. - 20. siehe 14a. - 21. klassische Philologie 3.1977. - 22. Klinische Medizin 1975. - 23. Kunstgeschichte 2.1971. - 24. Kybernetik. 2.1975. - 25. Mathematik 3.1974. - 26. Medizin 1976. - 26a. Militärwissenschaft 1985. - 27. Musikwissenschaft 1978. - 27a. Noten 2.1974. - 28. Ozeanographie 3.1977. -29. Pädagogik 8.1985. - 30. Philosphie 3.1974. - 31. Physik 3.1974. - 33. Politik, Politische Wissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Soziologie. Länderschlüssel. Register 1981. - 34. Psychologie 2.1972. - 35. Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1985. - 36. Rechtswissenschaften 1986. - 37. Regionale Geograpgie 3.1975. - 37a. Religionswissenschaft 1970. - 38. Romanistik 3.1976. - 39. Skandinavistik 4.1985. - 40. Slavistik 1977. - 40a. Sonstige Sprachen und Literaturen 1973. - 43. Sport 4.1983. - 44. Theaterwissenschaft 1985. - 45. Theologie 2.1976. - 45a. Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologie 1970. - 47. Volkskunde 1976. - 47a. Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1971 // Schlüssel: 1. Länderschlüssel 1971. - 2. Formenschlüssel (Kurzform) 1974. - 3. Personenschlüssel Literatur 5. Fassung 1968

0.08218258 = product of:
  0.16436516 = sum of:
    0.16436516 = product of:
      0.32873031 = sum of:
        0.32873031 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32873031 = score(doc=1325,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.1374071 = fieldWeight in 1325, 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=1325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous research assessing the effectiveness of structured abstracts has been limited in two respects. First, when comparing structured abstracts with traditional ones, investigators usually have rewritten the original abstracts, and thus confounded changes in the layout with changes in both the wording and the content of the text. Second, investigators have not always included the title of the article together with the abstract when asking participants to judge the quality of the abstracts, yet titles alert readers to the meaning of the materials that follow. The aim of this research was to redress these limitations. Three studies were carried out. Four versions of each of four abstracts were prepared. These versions consisted of structured/traditional abstracts matched in content, with and without titles. In Study 1, 64 undergraduates each rated one of these abstracts on six separate rating scales. In Study 2, 225 academics and research workers rated the abstracts electronically, and in Study 3, 252 information scientists did likewise. In Studies 1 and 3, the respondents rated the structured abstracts significantly more favorably than they did the traditional ones, but the presence or absence of titles had no effect on their judgments. In Study 2, no main effects were observed for structure or for titles. The layout of the text, together with the subheadings, contributed to the higher ratings of effectiveness for structured abstracts, but the presence or absence of titles had no clear effects in these experimental studies. It is likely that this spatial organization, together with the greater amount of information normally provided in structured abstracts, explains why structured abstracts are generally judged to be superior to traditional ones.

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

0.08161244 = product of:
  0.16322488 = sum of:
    0.16322488 = sum of:
      0.12893865 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12893865 = score(doc=3113,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.44612777 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3113, 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=3113)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ausgehend von einer Diskussion der Gestaltungskonzeptionen und der Leistungsfähigkeit heutiger Volltext-Retrieval-Systeme wird ein Überblick über den Leistungsumfang des für die Aufbereitung und Präsentation von Textinformation zuständigen Systems TWRM-TOPOGRAPHIC gegeben. TWRM-TOPOGRAPHIC ist Teil eines neuartigen Informationssystems, das sich auf inhaltsorientierte Repräsentation von Volltexten stützt. Die beiden wesentlichsten Leistungsmerkmale von TWRM-TOPOGRAPHIC sind die graphische Retrievaldialogführung und die flexible, situationsgerechte Aufbereitung und Präsentation von Textwissen: Die Dialogführung erlaubt dem Benutzer die direkte Navigation in den auf dem Bildschirm graphisch dargestellten Wissensstrukturen, die Selektion dargestellter Objekte zur Formulierung einer Query sowie das Wechseln des Abstraktionsniveaus der dargestellten Textinformation. Die Aufbereitung und die Präsentation von Textwissen sind kognitiv-ergonomisch begründet und berücksichtigen sowohl die begrenzte Aufnahmekapazität der Benutzer als auch die Bedeutung der zeitlichen Anordnung von Informationseinheiten für die Wahmehmungs- und Gedächtnisleistung der Rezipienten. Textwissen wird in unterschiedlichen Abstraktionsstufen präsentiert: von einer sehr generischen Ebene über Wissensgraphen, automatisch generierten Abstracts bis zur diskursiven Form der Textpassage. Die Generierungskomponente des Systems leistet einen Beitrag zum situationsgerechten Systemverhalten dadurch, daß sie aus semantischen Text-Repräsentationsstrukturen unter Berücksichtigung textueller Wohlgeformtheitsbedingungen benutzerangepaßte Abstracts mit unterschiedlichem Themenschwerpunkt und variabler Ausführlichkeit produziert. Die Erprobung verschiedener LayoutVerfahren im Projekt TWRM-TOPOGRAPHIC wird durch ein flexibles, objektorientiert spezifiziertes User-Interface-Mangagement-System (UIMS) unterstützt, dessen Objektklassen und deren Interaktionsmöglichkeiten vorgestellt werden. Die Darstellung des Systems wird mit einem ausführlichen Dialogbeispiel abgeschlossen, das die Funktion des Interface und die Wirkung der drei zentralen Operatoren (Select, Zoom und Browse) im Retrievaldialog illustriert.

Date

15. 1.2005 14:10:22

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.

0.078958474 = product of:
  0.15791695 = sum of:
    0.15791695 = product of:
      0.3158339 = sum of:
        0.3158339 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3158339 = score(doc=409,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.0927855 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Comparison of classification systems used by Chemical Abstracts and by the All-Russian Institute of Scientific and Technical Information in the corresponding section of the VINITI database

Object

Chemical Abstracts

0.0781649 = product of:
  0.1563298 = sum of:
    0.1563298 = product of:
      0.3126596 = sum of:
        0.3126596 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3126596 = score(doc=85,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.0818024 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Clear guidelines have been provided for structuring the abstracts of original research and review articles and, in the past 10 years, several major medical periodicals have adopted the policy of including such abstracts with all their articles. A review of the literature reveals that proponents claim that structured abstracts enhance peer review, improve information retrieval, and ease critical appraisal. However, some periodicals have not adopted structured abstracts and their opponents claim that they make articles longer and harder to read and restrict author originality. Concludes that previous research on structured abstracts focused on how closely they followed prescribed structure and include salient points of the full text, rather than their role in increasing the usefulness of the article

0.07736318 = product of:
  0.15472636 = sum of:
    0.15472636 = product of:
      0.3094527 = sum of:
        0.3094527 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3094527 = score(doc=1527,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.0707066 = fieldWeight in 1527, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reviews the WILSONDISC CD-ROM data base: Reader's guide Abstracts, wich indexes and abstracts the some 182 common, general, periodicals covered by the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature data base.

0.07736318 = product of:
  0.15472636 = sum of:
    0.15472636 = product of:
      0.3094527 = sum of:
        0.3094527 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3094527 = score(doc=1677,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            1.0707066 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Dissertation Abstracts

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 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10940806 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.37855196 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
      0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041143466 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.075275764 = product of:
  0.15055153 = sum of:
    0.15055153 = sum of:
      0.10940806 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 4902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10940806 = score(doc=4902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.37855196 = fieldWeight in 4902, 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=4902)
      0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041143466 = score(doc=4902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4902, 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=4902)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Kapitel: 1. Basic concepts of information retrieval systems, 2. Database technology, 3. Bibliographic formats, 4. Subject analysis and representation, 5. Automatic indexing and file organization, 6. Vocabulary control, 7. Abstracts and abstracting, 8. Searching and retrieval, 9. Users of information retrieval, 10. Evaluation of information retrieval systems, 11. Evaluation experiments, 12. Online information retrieval, 13. CD-ROM information retrieval, 14. Trends in CD-ROM and online information retrieval, 15. Multimedia information retrieval, 16. Hypertext and hypermedia systems, 17. Intelligent information retrieval, 18. Natural language processing and information retrieval, 19. Natural language interfaces, 20. Natural language text processing and retrieval systems, 21. Problems and prospects of natural language processing systems, 22. The Internet and information retrieval, 23. Trends in information retrieval.