Search (86 results, page 2 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Referieren"
  1. Ward, M.L.: ¬The future of the human indexer (1996) 0.00
    0.0016373465 = product of:
      0.016373465 = sum of:
        0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005915991 = score(doc=7244,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
        0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0016902501 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
        0.008767224 = product of:
          0.017534448 = sum of:
            0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017534448 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    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
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 28(1996) no.4, S.217-225
  2. Jizba, L.: Reflections on summarizing and abstracting : implications for Internet Web documents, and standardized library cataloging databases (1997) 0.00
    0.0016102897 = product of:
      0.016102897 = sum of:
        0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0053462577 = score(doc=701,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
        0.008784681 = product of:
          0.026354041 = sum of:
            0.026354041 = weight(_text_:l in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026354041 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0019719584 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    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
    Source
    Journal of Internet cataloging. 1(1997) no.2, S.15-39
  3. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.00
    0.0015748896 = product of:
      0.015748896 = sum of:
        0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0052914224 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
        0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0016902501 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
        0.008767224 = product of:
          0.017534448 = sum of:
            0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017534448 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    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
  4. Spina, D.; Trippas, J.R.; Cavedon, L.; Sanderson, M.: Extracting audio summaries to support effective spoken document search (2017) 0.00
    0.0015135966 = product of:
      0.015135966 = sum of:
        0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005915991 = score(doc=3788,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
        0.007529726 = product of:
          0.022589177 = sum of:
            0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022589177 = score(doc=3788,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0016902501 = score(doc=3788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    We address the challenge of extracting query biased audio summaries from podcasts to support users in making relevance decisions in spoken document search via an audio-only communication channel. We performed a crowdsourced experiment that demonstrates that transcripts of spoken documents created using Automated Speech Recognition (ASR), even with significant errors, are effective sources of document summaries or "snippets" for supporting users in making relevance judgments against a query. In particular, the results show that summaries generated from ASR transcripts are comparable, in utility and user-judged preference, to spoken summaries generated from error-free manual transcripts of the same collection. We also observed that content-based audio summaries are at least as preferred as synthesized summaries obtained from manually curated metadata, such as title and description. We describe a methodology for constructing a new test collection, which we have made publicly available.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2101-2115
  5. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: ¬The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts (2007) 0.00
    0.0014995674 = product of:
      0.014995674 = sum of:
        0.0073123598 = weight(_text_:in in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073123598 = score(doc=1325,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
        0.006274772 = product of:
          0.018824315 = sum of:
            0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018824315 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0014085418 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.14, S.2335-2340
  6. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.00
    0.0014950562 = product of:
      0.014950562 = sum of:
        0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006236001 = score(doc=7673,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
        0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0014085418 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
        0.0073060202 = product of:
          0.0146120405 = sum of:
            0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0146120405 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    Reports results of 2 studies to determine if structured abstracts offer any advantage to users in terms of whether they are easier to search. In study 1, using a specially prepared electronic database of abstracts in either their original format or the structured format, 52 users were asked to find the answers to 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts in traditional format followed by 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts set in the structured format. Time and error data were recorded automatically. In study 2, using a printed database, 56 users were asked to to find 5 abstracts that reprted a particular kind of study and then find 5 more references that reported another kind of study. In study 1 users performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts but there were some unexplainable practice effects. In study 2, the users again performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts. However, there were asymmetrical transfer effects: users who responded first to the structured abstracts responded more quickly to the following traditional abstracts than did those users who responded first to the traditional abstracts. Nevertheless, the overall findings support the hypothesis that it is easier for user to search structured abstracts than it is to search traditional abstracts
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
  7. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008) 0.00
    0.0013919314 = product of:
      0.013919314 = sum of:
        0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006236001 = score(doc=2362,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
        0.006274772 = product of:
          0.018824315 = sum of:
            0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018824315 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0014085418 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.12, S.1870-1877
  8. Bienert, F.: Probleme der Annotation in der Öffentlichen Bibliothek (1971) 0.00
    7.708376E-4 = product of:
      0.0115625635 = sum of:
        0.00705523 = weight(_text_:in in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00705523 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
        0.004507334 = weight(_text_:s in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004507334 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Source
    BuB. 23(1971), S.114-122
  9. Harbeck, R.; Lutterbeck, E.: Inhaltsangaben in der Dokumentation (1968) 0.00
    7.708376E-4 = product of:
      0.0115625635 = sum of:
        0.00705523 = weight(_text_:in in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00705523 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
        0.004507334 = weight(_text_:s in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004507334 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Source
    Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 19(1968), S.15-18
  10. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1991) 0.00
    7.3357456E-4 = product of:
      0.011003618 = sum of:
        0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061733257 = score(doc=752,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
        0.0048302924 = weight(_text_:s in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0048302924 = score(doc=752,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2059696 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Content
    Enthält folgende Kapitel: Pre-coordinate indexes; consistency of indexing: quality of indexing; abstracts: types and functions, writing the abstract, natural language in information retrieval, automatic indexing. There are exercises in both indexing and abstracting procedures
    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
    Pages
    XIV,328 S
  11. Wellisch, H.H.: Indexing and abstracting 1977-1981 : an international bibliography (1984) 0.00
    7.242469E-4 = product of:
      0.010863703 = sum of:
        0.007483202 = weight(_text_:in in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007483202 = score(doc=1453,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
        0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033805002 = score(doc=1453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Content
    Fortsetzung einer Ausgabe von 1980, die die Literatur bis 1976 berücksichtigt. - Laufende Fortsetzung in: The indexer
    Footnote
    Rez. in: International classification 13(1986) S.103 (I. Dahlberg)
  12. Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998) 0.00
    6.7611027E-4 = product of:
      0.010141654 = sum of:
        0.007887987 = weight(_text_:in in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007887987 = score(doc=2999,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
        0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002253667 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to consider whether or not structured abstracts can be used efectively in non medical science periodicals. Reviews a selection of studies on structured abstracts from the medical and psychological literature, presents examples of structured abstracts published in non medical science periodicals and considers how original abstracts might be written in a structured form for these periodicals. Concludes that, in light of these example studies, editors of these periodicals should consider the value of adopting structured abstracts
    Source
    Journal of information science. 24(1998) no.5, S.359-364
  13. Hahn, U.; Reimer, U.: Informationslinguistische Konzepte der Volltextverarbeitung in TOPIC (1983) 0.00
    6.7448284E-4 = product of:
      0.010117242 = sum of:
        0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061733257 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
        0.003943917 = weight(_text_:s in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003943917 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Pages
    S.345-385
  14. Pinto, M.; Lancaster, F.W.: Abstracts and abstracting in knowledge discovery (1999) 0.00
    6.7448284E-4 = product of:
      0.010117242 = sum of:
        0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 6233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061733257 = score(doc=6233,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 6233, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6233)
        0.003943917 = weight(_text_:s in 6233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003943917 = score(doc=6233,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 6233, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6233)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Source
    Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.234-248
  15. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (2003) 0.00
    6.582385E-4 = product of:
      0.009873576 = sum of:
        0.007483202 = weight(_text_:in in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007483202 = score(doc=4913,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
        0.002390375 = weight(_text_:s in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002390375 = score(doc=4913,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Content
    Covers: indexing principles and practice; precoordinate indexes; consistency and quality of indexing; types and functions of abstracts; writing an abstract; evaluation theory and practice; approaches used in indexing and abstracting services; indexing enhancement; natural language in information retrieval; indexing and abstracting of imaginative works; databases of images and sound; automatic indexing and abstracting; the future of indexing and abstracting services
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 57(2006) no.1, S.144-145 (H. Saggion): "... This volume is a very valuable source of information for not only students and professionals in library and information science but also for individuals and institutions involved in knowledge management and organization activities. Because of its broad coverage of the information science topic, teachers will find the contents of this book useful for courses in the areas of information technology, digital as well as traditional libraries, and information science in general."
    Pages
    451 S
  16. Lancaster, F.W.: Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (1998) 0.00
    6.047291E-4 = product of:
      0.009070937 = sum of:
        0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0052914224 = score(doc=4141,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
        0.0037795147 = weight(_text_:s in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0037795147 = score(doc=4141,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16116315 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Content
    Enthält die Kapitel: Indexing principles, Indexing practice, Precoordinate indexes, Consistency of indexing, Quality of indexing, Abstracts: types and functions, Writing the Abstract, Evaluation aspects, Approaches used in indexing and abstracting services, Enhancing the indexing, On the indexing and abstracting of imaginative works, Indexing multimedia sources, Texte searching, Automatic indexing, automatic abstracting, and related procedures, Indexing and the Internet, The future of indexing and abstracting, exercises in indexing and abstracting
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIS 50(1999) no.8, S.728-730 (J.-E. Mai); Indexer 21(1999) no.3, S.148 (P.F. Booth); Managing information 6(1999) no.1, S.48 (S.T. Clarke); Electronic library 17(1999) no.3, S.193 (F. Parry)
    Pages
    XIII,412 S
  17. Sauperl, A.; Klasinc, J.; Luzar, S.: Components of abstracts : logical structure of scholarly abstracts in pharmacology, sociology, and linguistics and literature (2008) 0.00
    5.976028E-4 = product of:
      0.008964041 = sum of:
        0.006972062 = weight(_text_:in in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006972062 = score(doc=1961,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
        0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.001991979 = score(doc=1961,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Abstract
    The international standard ISO 214:1976 defines an abstract as "an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document" (p. 1) that should "enable readers to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately to determine relevance" (p. 1). It also should be useful in computerized searching. The ISO standard suggests including the following elements: purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Researchers have often challenged this structure and found that different disciplines and cultures prefer different information content. These claims are partially supported by the findings of our research into the structure of pharmacology, sociology, and Slovenian language and literature abstracts of papers published in international and Slovenian scientific periodicals. The three disciplines have different information content. Slovenian pharmacology abstracts differ in content from those in international periodicals while the differences between international and Slovenian abstracts are small in sociology. In the field of Slovenian language and literature, only domestic abstracts were studied. The identified differences can in part be attributed to the disciplines, but also to the different role of journals and papers in the professional society and to differences in perception of the role of abstracts. The findings raise questions about the structure of abstracts required by some publishers of international journals.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1420-1432
  18. Borko, H.; Chatman, S.: Criteria for acceptable abstracts : a survey of abstractors' instructions (1963) 0.00
    5.974731E-4 = product of:
      0.008962097 = sum of:
        0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061733257 = score(doc=687,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
        0.0027887707 = weight(_text_:s in 687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027887707 = score(doc=687,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 687, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=687)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    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
    Source
    American documentation. 14(1963), S.149-160
  19. Rothkegel, A.: Abstracting from the perspective of text production (1995) 0.00
    5.9159653E-4 = product of:
      0.008873948 = sum of:
        0.006901989 = weight(_text_:in in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006901989 = score(doc=3740,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
        0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0019719584 = score(doc=3740,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Abstract
    An abstract itself is a text which is subjected to general and specific conditions of text production. The goal - namely the forming of the abstract as a text - controls the whole process of abstracting. This goal oriented view contrasts to most approaches in this domain which are source text oriented. Production strategies are described in terms of text structure building processes which are reconstructed with methods of modelling in the area of text linguistics and computational linguistics. This leads to a close relationship between thr representation of the model and the resulting text. Gives examples in which authentic material of abstracts is analyzed according to the model. The model itself integrates 3 text levels which are combined and represented in terms of the writer's activities
    Source
    Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.5, S.777-784
  20. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.: Content analysis : a special case of text compression (1989) 0.00
    5.595652E-4 = product of:
      0.008393478 = sum of:
        0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004409519 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
        0.003983958 = weight(_text_:s in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003983958 = score(doc=3549,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16988087 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    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.
    Pages
    S.103-112
    Source
    Information, knowledge, evolution. Proceedings of the 44th FID Congress, Helsinki, 28.8.-1.9.1988. Ed. by S. Koshiala and R. Launo

Languages

  • e 61
  • d 24
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 68
  • m 11
  • r 3
  • s 2
  • b 1
  • el 1
  • n 1
  • More… Less…