Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015645592 = product of:
  0.062582366 = sum of:
    0.062582366 = weight(_text_:open in 4446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062582366 = score(doc=4446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 4446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4446)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The technological revolution is affecting the structure, form and content of documents, reducing the effectiveness of traditional abstracts that, to some extent, are inadequate to the new documentary conditions. Aims to show the directions in which abstracting/abstracts can evolve to achieve the necessary adequacy in the new digital environments. Three researching trends are proposed: theoretical, methodological and pragmatic. Theoretically, there are some needs for expanding the document concept, reengineering abstracting and designing interdisciplinary models. Methodologically, the trend is toward the structuring, automating and qualifying of the abstracts. Pragmatically, abstracts networking, combined with alternative and complementary models, open a new and promising horizon. Automating, structuring and qualifying abstracting/abstract offer some short-term prospects for progress. Concludes that reengineering, networking and visualising would be middle-term fruitful areas of research toward the full adequacy of abstracting in the new electronic age.

0.013037993 = product of:
  0.05215197 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=3959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.013037993 = product of:
  0.05215197 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.007884207 = product of:
  0.03153683 = sum of:
    0.03153683 = product of:
      0.06307366 = sum of:
        0.06307366 = weight(_text_:22 in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06307366 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 1.1996 18:22:06

0.006307366 = product of:
  0.025229463 = sum of:
    0.025229463 = product of:
      0.050458927 = sum of:
        0.050458927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050458927 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Reference librarian. 1988, no.22, S.297-308

0.0047305245 = product of:
  0.018922098 = sum of:
    0.018922098 = product of:
      0.037844196 = sum of:
        0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037844196 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37

0.0047305245 = product of:
  0.018922098 = sum of:
    0.018922098 = product of:
      0.037844196 = sum of:
        0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037844196 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0047305245 = product of:
  0.018922098 = sum of:
    0.018922098 = product of:
      0.037844196 = sum of:
        0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037844196 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0039421036 = product of:
  0.015768414 = sum of:
    0.015768414 = product of:
      0.03153683 = sum of:
        0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03153683 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356