Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.040320244 = product of:
  0.060480364 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
    0.03380758 = product of:
      0.06761516 = sum of:
        0.06761516 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06761516 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

0.028611436 = product of:
  0.042917155 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=2421,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Graph-based ranking algorithms have recently been proposed for single document summarizations and such algorithms evaluate the importance of a sentence by making use of the relationships between sentences in the document in a recursive way. In this paper, we investigate using other related or relevant documents to improve summarization of one single document based on the graph-based ranking algorithm. In addition to the within-document relationships between sentences in the specified document, the cross-document relationships between sentences in different documents are also taken into account in the proposed approach. We evaluate the performance of the proposed approach on DUC 2002 data with the ROUGE metric and results demonstrate that the cross-document relationships between sentences in different but related documents can significantly improve the performance of single document summarization.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.024192145 = product of:
  0.036288217 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.021451002 = product of:
  0.064353004 = sum of:
    0.064353004 = product of:
      0.12870601 = sum of:
        0.12870601 = weight(_text_:demand in 8867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12870601 = score(doc=8867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.4134786 = fieldWeight in 8867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As a result of the transition to full-text storage, multimedia and networking, information systems are becoming more efficient but at the same time more difficult to use, in particular because users are confronted with information volumes that increasingly exceed individual processing capacities. Consequently, there is an increase in the demand for user aids such as summarising techniques. Against this background, the interdisciplinary Dagstuhl Seminar 'Summarising Text for Intelligent Communication' (Dec. 1993) outlined the academic state of the art with regard to summarising (abstracting) and proposed future directions for research and system development. Research is currently shifting its attention from text summarising to summarising states of affairs. Recycling solutions are put forward in order to satisfy short-term needs for summarisation products. In the medium and long term, it is necessary to devise concepts and methods of intelligent summarising which have a better formal and empirical grounding and a more modular organisation

0.012319634 = product of:
  0.0369589 = sum of:
    0.0369589 = weight(_text_:on in 6917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0369589 = score(doc=6917,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 6917, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6917)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Attempts to explain the intellectual and cognitive processes which govern the understanding and structure of a text, on the one hand, and writing a summary or abstract on the other, based on the literature of information science, education, cognitive psychology and psychiatry

0.011761595 = product of:
  0.035284784 = sum of:
    0.035284784 = weight(_text_:on in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035284784 = score(doc=5049,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.3214632 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on the salient features of the documents, automatic text summarization systems extract the key sentences from source documents. This process supports the users in evaluating the relevance of the extracted documents returned by information retrieval systems. Because of this tool, efficient filtering can be achieved. Indirectly, these systems help to resolve the problem of information overloading. Many automatic text summarization systems have been implemented for use with different languages. It has been established that the grammatical and lexical differences between languages have a significant effect on text processing. However, the impact of the language differences on the automatic text summarization systems has not yet been investigated. The authors provide an impact analysis of language difference on automatic text summarization. It includes the effect on the extraction processes, the scoring mechanisms, the performance, and the matching of the extracted sentences, using the parallel corpus in English and Chinese as the tested object. The analysis results provide a greater understanding of language differences and promote the future development of more advanced text summarization techniques.

Footnote

Beitrag einer special topic section on multilingual information systems

0.0108891195 = product of:
  0.032667357 = sum of:
    0.032667357 = weight(_text_:on in 4125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032667357 = score(doc=4125,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29761705 = fieldWeight in 4125, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4125)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents a structured abstract of the actual article. Outlines the debate on the value of structured abstracts and describes a research project into their use, which investigated records of cardiovascular disease downloaded from MEDLINE and tested against clinical questions derived from a survey of CD-ROM use in 3 health science libraries. It was found that structured abstracts improve precision at the expense of recall and place heavier demands on the skills of selecting fields to search within the abstract. Indicates directions for further research

0.009015355 = product of:
  0.027046064 = sum of:
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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

0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents a theoretical model, based on the Flower/Hayes model of expository writing, of the process involved in content analysis for abstracting and indexing.

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=85,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Comments on the value of abstracts or summary notes to information available online via the Internet and WWW and concludes that automated abstracting techniques would be highly useful if routinely applied to cataloguing or metadata for Internet documents and documents in other databases. Information seekers need external summary information to assess content and value of retrieved documents. Examines traditional models for writers, in library audiovisual cataloguing, periodical databases and archival work, along with innovative new model databases featuring robust cataloguing summaries. Notes recent developments in automated techniques, computational research, and machine summarization of digital images. Recommendations are made for future designers of cataloguing and metadata standards

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=3699,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The library and information science (LIS) literature on abstracting makes little mention about abstracting conducted in the corporate / business environment, whereas the business literature suggests that abstarcting is a very important component of business writing. Examines a variety of publications from LIS and business in order to compare and contrast their approaches to the following aspects of abstracting: definitions of abstracts; types of abstracts; purpose of abstracts; and writing of abstracts. Summarises the results of the examination which revealed a number of similarities, differences, and inadequacies in the ways in which both fields approach abstracting. Concludes that both fields need to develop more detailed guidelines concerning the cognitive process of abstracting and suggests improvements to the training af absractors based on these findings

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=3610,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to argue for a conception of information literacy (IL) that goes beyond the abilities of finding information as it includes communication skills. An important issue in this is that abstractors exercise IL on a professional level. Design/methodology/approach - By stressing the importance of the fact that information literacy extends towards verbal communication the paper takes an interdisciplinary approach, the main component of which is linguistics. Findings - It is found that verbal communication and especially analytic-synthetic writing activities play an important role in information literacy at the level of everyday language use, semi-professional and professional summarising of information. The latter level characterises abstracting. Originality/value - The paper adds to the body of knowledge about information literacy in general and in connection with communication and abstracting.

0.0076997704 = product of:
  0.02309931 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=807,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The literature on abstracts recommends the revision of author supplied abstracts before their inclusion in database collections. However, little guidance is given on how to carry out such revision, and few studies exist on this topic. The purpose of this research paper is to first survey 187 bibliographic databases to ascertain how many did revise abstracts, and then study the practical amendments made by one of these, i.e. LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts). Design/methodology/approach - Database policies were established by e-mail or through alternative sources, with 136 databases out of 187 exhaustively documented. Differences between 100 author-supplied abstracts and the corresponding 100 LISA amended abstracts were classified into sentence-level and beyond sentence-level categories, and then as additions, deletions and rephrasing of text. Findings - Revision of author abstracts was carried out by 66 databases, but in just 32 cases did it imply more than spelling, shortening of length and formula representation. In LISA, amendments were often non-systematic and inconsistent, but still pointed to significant aspects which were discussed. Originality/value - Amendments made by LISA editors are important in multi- and inter-disciplinary research, since they tend to clarify certain aspects such as terminology, and suggest that abstracts should not always be considered as substitutes for the original document. From this point-of-view, the revision of abstracts can be considered as an important factor in enhancing a database's quality.

0.0076997704 = product of:
  0.02309931 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=1325,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0076997704 = product of:
  0.02309931 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=3959,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to systemize and improve the scientific status of studies on document abstracting. This is a diachronic, systematic study of document abstracting studies carried out from different perspectives and models (textual, psycholinguistic, social and communicative). Design/methodology/approach - A review of the perspectives and analysis proposals which are of interest to the various theoreticians of abstracting is carried out using a variety of techniques and approaches (cognitive, linguistic, communicative-social, didactic, etc.), each with different levels of theoretical and methodological abstraction and degrees of application. The most significant contributions of each are reviewed and highlighted, along with their limitations. Findings - It is found that the great challenge in abstracting is the systemization of models and conceptual apparatus, which open up this type of research to semiotic and socio-interactional perspectives. It is necessary to carry out suitable empirical research with operative designs and ad hoc measuring instruments which can measure the efficiency of the abstracting and the efficiency of a good abstract, while at the same time feeding back into the theoretical baggage of this type of study. Such research will have to explain and provide answers to all the elements and variables, which affect the realization and the reception of a quality abstract. Originality/value - The paper provides a small map of the studies on document abstracting. This shows how the conceptual and methodological framework has extended at the same time as the Science of Documentation has been evolving. All the models analysed - the communicative and interactional approach - are integrated in a new systematic framework.

0.0076997704 = product of:
  0.02309931 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Summarizing is the process of reducing the large information size of something like a novel or a scientific paper to a short summary or abstract comprising only the most essential points. Summarizing is frequent in everyday communication, but it is also a professional skill for journalists and others. Automated summarizing functions are urgently needed by Internet users who wish to avoid being overwhelmed by information. This book presents the state of the art and surveys related research; it deals with everyday and professional summarizing as well as computerized approaches. The author focuses in detail on the cognitive pro-cess involved in summarizing and supports this with a multimedia simulation systems on the accompanying CD-ROM

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: BAKER, D.B.: Abstracting and indexing services: past, present, and future; KENNEDY, H.E.: A perspective on fifteen years in the abstracting and indexing field; WEIL, B.H.: Will abstracts survive technological developments? and will "cheaper is better" win out?; KILGOUR, F.G.: Comparative development of abstracting and indexing, and monograph cataloging; ROWLETT, R.J.: Abstracts, who needs them?