Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02629637 = product of:
  0.1402473 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=317)
    0.08934415 = weight(_text_:2nd in 317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08934415 = score(doc=317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18010403 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.49606967 = fieldWeight in 317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=317)
    0.017933354 = product of:
      0.035866708 = sum of:
        0.035866708 = weight(_text_:ed in 317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035866708 = score(doc=317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.31430796 = fieldWeight in 317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of the American Society for information Science. 42(1991) S.532-539 (B.H. Weinberg)

Issue

2nd ed.

0.024532227 = product of:
  0.19625781 = sum of:
    0.09812891 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09812891 = score(doc=701,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6877445 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.09812891 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09812891 = score(doc=701,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6877445 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

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

0.02218359 = product of:
  0.17746872 = sum of:
    0.11073077 = weight(_text_:author in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11073077 = score(doc=4823,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.71518254 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
    0.06673796 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06673796 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3713015 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This paper is a review of genre analysis of author abstracts carried out in the area of English for Special Purposes (ESP) since 1990. Given the descriptive character of such analysis, it can be valuable for Information Science (IS), as it provides a picture of the variation in author abstracts, depending an the discipline, culture and language of the author, and the envisaged context. The authors claim that such knowledge can be useful for information professionals who need to revise author abstracts, or use them for other activities in the organization of knowledge, such as subject analysis and control of vocabulary. With this purpose in mind, we summarize various findings of ESP research. We describe how abstracts vary in structure, content and discourse, and how linguists explain such variations. Other factors taken into account are the stylistic and discoursal features of the abstract, lexical choices, and the possible sources of blas. In conclusion, we show how such findings can have practical and theoretical implications for IS.

0.014338218 = product of:
  0.11470574 = sum of:
    0.08934415 = weight(_text_:2nd in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08934415 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18010403 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.49606967 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
    0.025361594 = product of:
      0.050723188 = sum of:
        0.050723188 = weight(_text_:ed in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050723188 = score(doc=1007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.4444986 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Content

1st ed.: Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information 1982

Issue

2nd ed.

0.013080392 = product of:
  0.104643136 = sum of:
    0.08253384 = weight(_text_:author in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08253384 = score(doc=807,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

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.

Source

Aslib proceedings. 59(2007) no.1, S.26-45

0.012266113 = product of:
  0.09812891 = sum of:
    0.049064454 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049064454 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.34387225 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
    0.049064454 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049064454 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.34387225 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

0.011798412 = product of:
  0.06292486 = sum of:
    0.017986061 = product of:
      0.035972122 = sum of:
        0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035972122 = score(doc=2676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035972122 = score(doc=2676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2676)
    0.008966677 = product of:
      0.017933354 = sum of:
        0.017933354 = weight(_text_:ed in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017933354 = score(doc=2676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.15715398 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Content

1. Introduction This paper reports our initial effort to develop an automatic method for parsing the discourse structure of sociology dissertation abstracts. This study is part of a broader study to develop a method for multi-document summarization. Accurate discourse parsing will make it easier to perform automatic multi-document summarization of dissertation abstracts. In a previous study, we determined that the macro-level structure of dissertation abstracts typically has five sections (Khoo et al., 2002). In this study, we treated discourse parsing as a text categorization problem - assigning each sentence in a dissertation abstract to one of the five predefined sections or categories. Decision tree induction, a machine-learning method, was applied to word tokens found in the abstracts to construct a decision tree model for the categorization purpose. Decision tree induction was selected primarily because decision tree models are easy to interpret and can be converted to rules that can be incorporated in other computer programs. A well-known decision-tree induction program, C5.0 (Quinlan, 1993), was used in this study.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.01011716 = product of:
  0.08093728 = sum of:
    0.026979093 = product of:
      0.053958185 = sum of:
        0.053958185 = weight(_text_:rules in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053958185 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.33386347 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.053958185 = weight(_text_:rules in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053958185 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.33386347 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

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

0.010057266 = product of:
  0.08045813 = sum of:
    0.06700811 = weight(_text_:2nd in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06700811 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18010403 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.37205225 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
    0.013450016 = product of:
      0.026900033 = sum of:
        0.026900033 = weight(_text_:ed in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026900033 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.23573098 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Issue

2nd ed.

0.009506433 = product of:
  0.076051466 = sum of:
    0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049520306 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
    0.026531162 = weight(_text_:26 in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026531162 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

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

Date

26. 5.1996 11:11:10

0.007475199 = product of:
  0.059801593 = sum of:
    0.030953024 = weight(_text_:26 in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030953024 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Date

26. 7.2002 11:58:24

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

0.006337622 = product of:
  0.050700977 = sum of:
    0.033013538 = weight(_text_:author in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033013538 = score(doc=5603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.21322623 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
    0.017687442 = weight(_text_:26 in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017687442 = score(doc=5603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.15607277 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure of a small number of abstracts that have appeared in the CABI database over a number of years, during which time the authorship of the abstracts changed from CABI editorial staff to journal article authors themselves. This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology in an effort to discover whether these abstracts followed generally agreed abstracting guidelines. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted was a move analysis of the text of the abstracts. This move analysis revealed a five-move pattern: move 1 situates the research within the scientific community; move 2 introduces the research by either describing the main features of the research or presenting its purpose; move 3 describes the methodology; move 4 states the results; and move 5 draws conclusions or suggests practical applications. Findings - Thematic analysis shows that scientific abstract authors thematise their subject by referring to the discourse domain or the "real" world. Not all of the abstracts succeeded in following the guideline advice. However, there was general consistency regarding semantic organisation and thematic structure. Research limitations/implications - The research limitations were the small number of abstracts examined, from just one subject domain. Practical limitations - The practical implications are the need for abstracting services to be clearer and more prescriptive regarding how they want abstracts to be structured as the lack of formal training in abstract writing increases the risk of subjectivity and verbosity and reduces clarity in scientific abstracts. Another implication of the research are that abstracting and indexing services must ensure that they maintain abstract quality if they introduce policies of accepting author abstracts. This is important as there is probably little formal training in abstract writing for science students at present. Recommendations for further research are made. Originality/value - This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology.

Date

1. 8.2006 12:00:26

0.006187304 = product of:
  0.04949843 = sum of:
    0.033013538 = weight(_text_:author in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033013538 = score(doc=2917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.21322623 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
    0.016484896 = weight(_text_:american in 2917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016484896 = score(doc=2917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.15067379 = fieldWeight in 2917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2917)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Was ein Abstract (im Folgenden synonym mit Referat oder Kurzreferat gebraucht) ist, legt das American National Standards Institute in einer Weise fest, die sicherlich von den meisten Fachleuten akzeptiert werden kann: "An abstract is defined as an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document"; fast genauso die deutsche Norm DIN 1426: "Das Kurzreferat gibt kurz und klar den Inhalt des Dokuments wieder." Abstracts gehören zum wissenschaftlichen Alltag. Weitgehend allen Publikationen, zumindest in den naturwissenschaftlichen, technischen, informationsbezogenen oder medizinischen Bereichen, gehen Abstracts voran, "prefe-rably prepared by its author(s) for publication with it". Es gibt wohl keinen Wissenschaftler, der nicht irgendwann einmal ein Abstract geschrieben hätte. Gehört das Erstellen von Abstracts dann überhaupt zur dokumentarischen bzw informationswissenschaftlichen Methodenlehre, wenn es jeder kann? Was macht den informationellen Mehrwert aus, der durch Expertenreferate gegenüber Laienreferaten erzeugt wird? Dies ist nicht so leicht zu beantworten, zumal geeignete Bewertungsverfahren fehlen, die Qualität von Abstracts vergleichend "objektiv" zu messen. Abstracts werden in erheblichem Umfang von Informationsspezialisten erstellt, oft unter der Annahme, dass Autoren selber dafür weniger geeignet sind. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, was wir über Abstracts und Abstracting wissen. Ein besonders gelungenes Abstract ist zuweilen klarer als der Ursprungstext selber, darf aber nicht mehr Information als dieser enthalten: "Good abstracts are highly structured, concise, and coherent, and are the result of a thorough analysis of the content of the abstracted materials. Abstracts may be more readable than the basis documents, but because of size constraints they rarely equal and never surpass the information content of the basic document". Dies ist verständlich, denn ein "Abstract" ist zunächst nichts anderes als ein Ergebnis des Vorgangs einer Abstraktion. Ohne uns zu sehr in die philosophischen Hintergründe der Abstraktion zu verlieren, besteht diese doch "in der Vernachlässigung von bestimmten Vorstellungsbzw. Begriffsinhalten, von welchen zugunsten anderer Teilinhalte abgesehen, abstrahiert' wird. Sie ist stets verbunden mit einer Fixierung von (interessierenden) Merkmalen durch die aktive Aufmerksamkeit, die unter einem bestimmten pragmatischen Gesichtspunkt als wesentlich' für einen vorgestellten bzw für einen unter einen Begriff fallenden Gegenstand (oder eine Mehrheit von Gegenständen) betrachtet werden". Abstracts reduzieren weniger Begriffsinhalte, sondern Texte bezüglich ihres proportionalen Gehaltes. Borko/ Bernier haben dies sogar quantifiziert; sie schätzen den Reduktionsfaktor auf 1:10 bis 1:12

0.0036108557 = product of:
  0.05777369 = sum of:
    0.05777369 = weight(_text_:author in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05777369 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Compares formats and linguistic devices of German abstracts and their English equivalents, written by German medical scholars to English native speakers. The source is 20 abstracts taken from German medical journals representing different degrees of specialism. The analysis includes: the overall length of articles/abstracts; the representation/arrangement of sections; the linguistic devices. Results show no correlation between the length of articles and the length of abstracts. In contrast to native speaking author abstracts, 'background information' predominated in the structure of the studied German non-native speaker abstracts, whereas 'purpose of study' and 'conclusions' were not clearly stated. In linguistic terms, the German abstracts frequently contained lexical hegdes, complex and enumerating sentence structure; passive voice and post tense as well as various types of linking structures

0.0036108557 = product of:
  0.05777369 = sum of:
    0.05777369 = weight(_text_:author in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05777369 = score(doc=85,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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

0.003606071 = product of:
  0.057697136 = sum of:
    0.057697136 = weight(_text_:american in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057697136 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.5273583 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.10, S.845-854

0.0022416692 = product of:
  0.035866708 = sum of:
    0.035866708 = product of:
      0.071733415 = sum of:
        0.071733415 = weight(_text_:ed in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071733415 = score(doc=2738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.6286159 = fieldWeight in 2738, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Informatics 9: Meaning: the frontier of informatics: proceedings of a conference. Ed.: K.P. Jones

0.002060612 = product of:
  0.03296979 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=5026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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

0.002060612 = product of:
  0.03296979 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 1790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=1790,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 1790, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1790)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.3, S.225-234

0.0019813746 = product of:
  0.031701993 = sum of:
    0.031701993 = product of:
      0.06340399 = sum of:
        0.06340399 = weight(_text_:ed in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06340399 = score(doc=282,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.55562323 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Content

1st ed.: Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information 1982

Issue

3rd ed.