-
Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996)
0.03
0.032011006 = product of:
0.14938469 = sum of:
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
0.10900982 = sum of:
0.08460181 = weight(_text_:texts in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08460181 = score(doc=7244,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5139637 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Considers the principles of indexing and the intellectual skills involved in order to determine what automatic indexing systems would be required in order to supplant or complement the human indexer. Good indexing requires: considerable prior knowledge of the literature; judgement as to what to index and what depth to index; reading skills; abstracting skills; and classification skills, Illustrates these features with a detailed description of abstracting and indexing processes involved in generating entries for the mechanical engineering database POWERLINK. Briefly assesses the possibility of replacing human indexers with specialist indexing software, with particular reference to the Object Analyzer from the InTEXT automatic indexing system and using the criteria described for human indexers. At present, it is unlikely that the automatic indexer will replace the human indexer, but when more primary texts are available in electronic form, it may be a useful productivity tool for dealing with large quantities of low grade texts (should they be wanted in the database)
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
-
Bowman, J.H.: Annotation: a lost art in cataloguing (2007)
0.02
0.016459066 = product of:
0.076808974 = sum of:
0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029704956 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Public library catalogues in early twentieth-century Britain frequently included annotations, either to clarify obscure titles or to provide further information about the subject-matter of the books they described. Two manuals giving instruction on how to do this were published at that time. Following World War I, with the decline of the printed catalogue, this kind of annotation became rarer, and was almost confined to bulletins of new books. The early issues of the British National Bibliography included some annotations in exceptional cases. Parallels are drawn with the provision of table-of-contents information in present-day OPAC's.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 44(2007) nos.1/2, S.95-111
-
Wellisch, H.H.: Indexing and abstracting 1977-1981 : an international bibliography (1984)
0.01
0.01153568 = product of:
0.08074976 = sum of:
0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04037488 = score(doc=1453,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04037488 = score(doc=1453,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: International classification 13(1986) S.103 (I. Dahlberg)
-
Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1991)
0.01
0.009516451 = product of:
0.06661515 = sum of:
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=752,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=752,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
-
Fraenkel, A.S.; Klein, S.T.: Information retrieval from annotated texts (1999)
0.00
0.0049852096 = product of:
0.069792934 = sum of:
0.069792934 = product of:
0.13958587 = sum of:
0.13958587 = weight(_text_:texts in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13958587 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.84799683 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
-
Wheatley, A.; Armstrong, C.J.: Metadata, recall, and abstracts : can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value? (1997)
0.00
0.004066672 = product of:
0.056933407 = sum of:
0.056933407 = weight(_text_:subject in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056933407 = score(doc=824,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Abstracts from 7 Internet subject trees (Euroferret, Excite, Infoseek, Lycos Top 5%, Magellan, WebCrawler, Yahoo!), 5 Internet subject gateways (ADAM, EEVL, NetFirst, OMNI, SOSIG), and 3 online databases (ERIC, ISI, LISA) were examined for their subject content, treatment of various enriching features, physical properties such as overall length, anf their readability. Considerable differences were measured, and consistent similarities among abstracts from each type of source were demonstrated. Internet subject tree abstracts were generally the shortest, and online database abstracts the longest. Subject tree and online database abstracts were the most informative, but the level of coverage of document features such as tables, bibliographies, and geographical constraints were disappointingly poor. On balance, the Internet gateways appeared to be providing the most satisfactory abstracts. The authors discuss the continuing role in networked information retrieval of abstracts and their functional analoques such as metadata
-
Parekh, R.L.: Advanced indexing and abstracting practices (2000)
0.00
0.003047249 = product of:
0.042661484 = sum of:
0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042661484 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Content
- Inhalt: 1. Indexing and Abstracting 2. Automatic Indexing and Automatic Abstracting 3. Principles of Indexing 4.Periodicals Listing and Accessioning 5. Online Computer Service 6. Dialog, Searching and Bibliographic Display 7. Books 8. Bibliographic Control 9. Abstracting Functions 10. Acquisition System 11. Future of Indexing and Abstracting Services
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008)
0.00
0.0025179111 = product of:
0.035250753 = sum of:
0.035250753 = product of:
0.07050151 = sum of:
0.07050151 = weight(_text_:texts in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07050151 = score(doc=2362,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42830306 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
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)
0.00
0.0024248946 = product of:
0.033948522 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Reports on a comparison of the "content categories" listed in the ANSI/ISO abstracting standards to actual content found in abstracts from the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. The preliminary findings question the fundamental concept underlying these standards, namely, that any one set of standards and generalized instructions can describe and elicit the optimal configuration for abstracts from all subject areas
-
Borko, H.; Chatman, S.: Criteria for acceptable abstracts : a survey of abstractors' instructions (1963)
0.00
0.0021217826 = product of:
0.029704956 = sum of:
0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029704956 = score(doc=687,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- The need for criteria by which to judge the adequacy of an abstract is felt most strongly when evaluating machine-produced abstracts. In order to develop a set of criteria, a survey was conducted of the instructions prepared by various scientific publications as a guide to their abstracters in the preparation of copy. One-hundred-and-thirty sets of instructions were analyzed and compared as to their function, content, and form. It was concluded that, while differences in subject matter do not necessarily require different kinds of abstracts, there are significant variations between the informative and the indicative abstract. A set of criteria for the writing of an acceptable abstract of science literature was derived. The adequacy of these criteria is still to be validated, and the athors' plans for fututre research in this area are specified
-
Armstrong, C.J.; Wheatley, A.: Writing abstracts for online databases : results of database producers' guidelines (1998)
0.00
0.0021217826 = product of:
0.029704956 = sum of:
0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029704956 = score(doc=3295,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Reports on one area of research in an Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) MODELS (MOving to Distributed Environments for Library Services) supporting study in 3 investigative areas: examination of current database producers' guidelines for their abstract writers; a brief survey of abstracts in some traditional online databases; and a detailed survey of abstracts from 3 types of electronic database (print sourced online databases, Internet subject trees or directories, and Internet gateways). Examination of database producers' guidelines, reported here, gave a clear view of the intentions behind professionally produced traditional (printed index based) database abstracts and provided a benchmark against which to judge the conclusions of the larger investigations into abstract style, readability and content
-
Montesi, M.; Urdiciain, B.G.: Recent linguistic research into author abstracts : its value for information science (2005)
0.00
0.0018186709 = product of:
0.02546139 = sum of:
0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02546139 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Montesi, M.; Mackenzie Owen, J.: Revision of author abstracts : how it is carried out by LISA editors (2007)
0.00
0.0017956087 = product of:
0.02513852 = sum of:
0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02513852 = score(doc=807,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Cross, C.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬A genre analysis of scientific abstracts (2006)
0.00
0.0017146593 = product of:
0.024005229 = sum of:
0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024005229 = score(doc=5603,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Koltay, T.: ¬A hypertext tutorial on abstracting for library science students (1995)
0.00
0.0014528577 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = product of:
0.040680014 = sum of:
0.040680014 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040680014 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 27. 1.1996 18:22:06
-
Palais, E.S.: Abstracting for reference librarians (1988)
0.00
0.0011622861 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03254401 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.00
8.7171455E-4 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
-
Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, J.: Incorporating cross-document relationships between sentences for single document summarizations (2006)
0.00
8.7171455E-4 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
