Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.03 
    0.02543695 = product of:
  0.063592374 = sum of:
    0.020972708 = weight(_text_:1 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020972708 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.042619668 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042619668 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
  2. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.02 
    0.024093186 = product of:
  0.060232963 = sum of:
    0.024716575 = weight(_text_:1 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024716575 = score(doc=7673,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
    0.03551639 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03551639 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  3. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.01 
    0.014206556 = product of:
  0.07103278 = sum of:
    0.07103278 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07103278 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    27. 1.1996 18:22:06
  4. Ickler, T.: Zur Textgattung 'Abstract' (1993) 0.01 
    0.013981806 = product of:
  0.06990903 = sum of:
    0.06990903 = weight(_text_:1 in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06990903 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.5428155 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Fachsprache. 15(1993) H.1/2, S.44-53
  5. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Kognitive Modellierung des Abstracting (1991) 0.01 
    0.011863955 = product of:
  0.059319776 = sum of:
    0.059319776 = weight(_text_:1 in 23) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059319776 = score(doc=23,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.46059424 = fieldWeight in 23, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=23)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Series
    DGD-Schrift (DOK-3); 1/91
    Source
    Deutscher Dokumentartag 1990. 1. Deutsch-deutscher Dokumentartag, 25.-27.9.90, Fulda. Proceedings. Hrsg. W. Neubauer u. U. Schneider-Briehn
  6. Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988) 0.01 
    0.011365245 = product of:
  0.056826223 = sum of:
    0.056826223 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056826223 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308
  7. Kuhlen, R.: Abstracts, abstracting : intellektuelle und maschinelle Verfahren (1990) 0.01 
    0.009787264 = product of:
  0.04893632 = sum of:
    0.04893632 = weight(_text_:1 in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04893632 = score(doc=2333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.37997085 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 3. Aufl. Hrsg.: M. Buder u.a. Bd.1
  8. Pinto, M.; Lancaster, F.W.: Abstracts and abstracting in knowledge discovery (1999) 0.01 
    0.009787264 = product of:
  0.04893632 = sum of:
    0.04893632 = weight(_text_:1 in 6233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04893632 = score(doc=6233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.37997085 = fieldWeight in 6233, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6233)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.234-248
  9. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1991) 0.01 
    0.009787264 = product of:
  0.04893632 = sum of:
    0.04893632 = weight(_text_:1 in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04893632 = score(doc=752,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.37997085 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Library and information science resaerch 14(1992) no.1, S.117-118 (C. Tenopir); International classification 19(1992) no.4, S.227-228 (R. Fugmann); Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43(1992) no.6, S.456 (B.R. Boyce); Cataloging & classification quarterly 15(1992) no.1, S.245-247 (E.M. Rasmussen) Journal of academic librarianship 18(1992) no.1, S.39 (G.A. Crawford) // Winner of the 1992 ASIS best information science book award
    Isbn
    1-85604-004-6
  10. Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996) 0.01 
    0.008523934 = product of:
  0.042619668 = sum of:
    0.042619668 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042619668 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
  11. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.01 
    0.008523934 = product of:
  0.042619668 = sum of:
    0.042619668 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042619668 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  12. Cleveland, D.B.; Cleveland, A.D.: Introduction to abstracting and indexing (2001) 0.01 
    0.006990903 = product of:
  0.034954514 = sum of:
    0.034954514 = weight(_text_:1 in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034954514 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.27140775 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Isbn
    1-563-08641-7
  13. O'Rourke, A.J.: Structured abstracts in information retrieval from biomedical databases : a literature survey (1997) 0.01 
    0.006920641 = product of:
  0.034603205 = sum of:
    0.034603205 = weight(_text_:1 in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034603205 = score(doc=85,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.26867998 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    1. 1.1998 10:00:43
    Source
    Health informatics journal. 3(1997) no.1, S.17-20
  14. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008) 0.01 
    0.0060543 = product of:
  0.030271498 = sum of:
    0.030271498 = weight(_text_:1 in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030271498 = score(doc=2362,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.23504603 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Many writers of structured abstracts spend a good deal of time revising and polishing their texts - but is it worth it? Do readers notice the difference? In this paper we report three studies of readers using rating scales to judge (electronically) the clarity of an original and a revised abstract, both as a whole and in its constituent parts. In Study 1, with approximately 250 academics and research workers, we found some significant differences in favor of the revised abstract, but in Study 2, with approximately 210 information scientists, we found no significant effects. Pooling the data from Studies 1 and 2, however, in Study 3, led to significant differences at a higher probability level between the perception of the original and revised abstract as a whole and between the same components as found in Study 1. These results thus indicate that the revised abstract as a whole, as well as certain specific components of it, were judged significantly clearer than the original one. In short, the results of these experiments show that readers can and do perceive differences between original and revised texts - sometimes - and that therefore these efforts are worth the time and effort.
  15. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Summarizing information (1998) 0.01 
    0.0059319776 = product of:
  0.029659888 = sum of:
    0.029659888 = weight(_text_:1 in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029659888 = score(doc=688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.23029712 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Pages
    VII, 375 S. + 1 CD-ROM
    Signature
    79 BCA 129-1 (75 BCA 129-2)
  16. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1998) 0.01 
    0.0059319776 = product of:
  0.029659888 = sum of:
    0.029659888 = weight(_text_:1 in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029659888 = score(doc=4141,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.23029712 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIS 50(1999) no.8, S.728-730 (J.-E. Mai); Indexer 21(1999) no.3, S.148 (P.F. Booth); Managing information 6(1999) no.1, S.48 (S.T. Clarke); Electronic library 17(1999) no.3, S.193 (F. Parry)
    Isbn
    1-85604-268-5
  17. Tibbo, H.R.: Abstracting across the disciplines : a content analysis of abstracts for the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval (1992) 0.01 
    0.005592722 = product of:
  0.02796361 = sum of:
    0.02796361 = weight(_text_:1 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02796361 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.2171262 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Library and information science research. 14(1992) no.1, S.31-56
  18. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: ¬The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts (2007) 0.00 
    0.004943315 = product of:
  0.024716575 = sum of:
    0.024716575 = weight(_text_:1 in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024716575 = score(doc=1325,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  19. Sauperl, A.; Klasinc, J.; Luzar, S.: Components of abstracts : logical structure of scholarly abstracts in pharmacology, sociology, and linguistics and literature (2008) 0.00 
    0.004943315 = product of:
  0.024716575 = sum of:
    0.024716575 = weight(_text_:1 in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024716575 = score(doc=1961,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The international standard ISO 214:1976 defines an abstract as "an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document" (p. 1) that should "enable readers to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately to determine relevance" (p. 1). It also should be useful in computerized searching. The ISO standard suggests including the following elements: purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Researchers have often challenged this structure and found that different disciplines and cultures prefer different information content. These claims are partially supported by the findings of our research into the structure of pharmacology, sociology, and Slovenian language and literature abstracts of papers published in international and Slovenian scientific periodicals. The three disciplines have different information content. Slovenian pharmacology abstracts differ in content from those in international periodicals while the differences between international and Slovenian abstracts are small in sociology. In the field of Slovenian language and literature, only domestic abstracts were studied. The identified differences can in part be attributed to the disciplines, but also to the different role of journals and papers in the professional society and to differences in perception of the role of abstracts. The findings raise questions about the structure of abstracts required by some publishers of international journals.
  20. Koltay, T.: Abstracts and abstracting : a genre and set of skills for the twenty-first century (2010) 0.00 
    0.004943315 = product of:
  0.024716575 = sum of:
    0.024716575 = weight(_text_:1 in 4125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024716575 = score(doc=4125,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 4125, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4125)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Isbn
    978-1-84334-518-3 (hb.) *
    978-1-84334-517-6 (pb)

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 24
  • d 6

Types

  • a 22
  • m 7
  • el 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications