Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × 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) 0.05
    0.04739448 = product of:
      0.14218344 = sum of:
        0.14218344 = sum of:
          0.10206425 = weight(_text_:page in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10206425 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
                0.049352113 = queryNorm
              0.37026453 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
          0.040119182 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.040119182 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.049352113 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Structured abstracts are abstracts which include subheadings such as: background, aims, participants methods and results. These are rapidly replacing traditional abstracts in medical periodicals, but the number and detail of the subheadings used varies, and there is a range of different typographic settings. Reviews a number of studies designed to investigate readers' preferences for different typographic settings and layout. Over 400 readers took part in the study: students; postgraduates; research workers and academics in the social sciences. The most preferred version emerged from the last of 3 studies and 2 additional studies were then carried out to determine preferences for the overall position and layout of this most preferred version on a A4 page. The most preferred version for the setting of the subheadings are printed in bold capital letters
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
  2. Spina, D.; Trippas, J.R.; Cavedon, L.; Sanderson, M.: Extracting audio summaries to support effective spoken document search (2017) 0.03
    0.03331343 = product of:
      0.09994029 = sum of:
        0.09994029 = weight(_text_:query in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09994029 = score(doc=3788,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.43571556 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    We address the challenge of extracting query biased audio summaries from podcasts to support users in making relevance decisions in spoken document search via an audio-only communication channel. We performed a crowdsourced experiment that demonstrates that transcripts of spoken documents created using Automated Speech Recognition (ASR), even with significant errors, are effective sources of document summaries or "snippets" for supporting users in making relevance judgments against a query. In particular, the results show that summaries generated from ASR transcripts are comparable, in utility and user-judged preference, to spoken summaries generated from error-free manual transcripts of the same collection. We also observed that content-based audio summaries are at least as preferred as synthesized summaries obtained from manually curated metadata, such as title and description. We describe a methodology for constructing a new test collection, which we have made publicly available.
  3. Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995) 0.01
    0.011144217 = product of:
      0.03343265 = sum of:
        0.03343265 = product of:
          0.0668653 = sum of:
            0.0668653 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0668653 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049352113 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    27. 1.1996 18:22:06
  4. Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988) 0.01
    0.008915374 = product of:
      0.026746122 = sum of:
        0.026746122 = product of:
          0.053492244 = sum of:
            0.053492244 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053492244 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049352113 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308
  5. Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996) 0.01
    0.0066865305 = product of:
      0.020059591 = sum of:
        0.020059591 = product of:
          0.040119182 = sum of:
            0.040119182 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040119182 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049352113 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
  6. Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006) 0.01
    0.0066865305 = product of:
      0.020059591 = sum of:
        0.020059591 = product of:
          0.040119182 = sum of:
            0.040119182 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040119182 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049352113 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  7. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.01
    0.0055721086 = product of:
      0.016716326 = sum of:
        0.016716326 = product of:
          0.03343265 = sum of:
            0.03343265 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03343265 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049352113 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356