Metadata, recall, and abstracts: Can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value?

Aslib Proceedings

Volumn 49, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 206-213

  Wheatley, A ^a   Armstrong, C J ^b  

^a ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Ctr for Info Quality Management   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002053245     PISSN: 0001253X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb051467     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. CLARKE, S.J. and WILLETT, P. Estimating the recall performance of Web search engines. Aslib Proceedings, 49(7), 1997, pp. 184-189.
2. JIZBA, L. Reflections and summarizing and abstracting: Implications for Internet Web documents, and standardized library cataloging databases. Journal of Internet Cataloging, 1(2), 1997, pp.15-39.
3. Z39.14-1979: American national standard for writing abstracts. ANSI: New York, 1979.
4. WHEATLEY, A. and ARMSTRONG, C.J. A Survey of the content and characteristics of electronic abstracts. October 1997. Available at http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ models/studies/ (Word 6 or RTF formats)
5. DEMPSEY, L. Meta Detectors. Ariadne, Issue 3. At http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue3/metadata/
6. TENOPIR, C. and JACSO, P. Quality of abstracts. Online, 17(3), 1993, pp.44-55.
7. MOLINA, M.P. Documentary abstracting: toward a methodological model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(3), 1995, pp.225-34.
8. FIDEL, R. Writing abstracts for free-text searching. Journal of Documentation, 42(1), 1986, pp.11-21.
9. BORKO, H. and CHAPMAN, S. Criteria for acceptable abstracts: a survey of abstractor's instructions. American Documentation, 14(2), 1963, pp.149-60.
10. RESNICK, A. Relative effectiveness of document titles and abstracts for determining the relevance of documents. Science, 134(3484), 1961, pp.1004-5.
11. HARTLEY, J., TRUEMAN, M. and MEADOWS, A.J. Readability and prestige in scientific journals. Journal of Information Science, 14(2), 1988, pp.69-75.
12. HARTLEY, J. and SYDES, M. Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? Journal of Research in Reading, 20(2), 1997 (in press).
13. HARTLEY, J. and SYDES, M. A thorn on the Flesch: observations on the unreliability of computer-based readability formulae. Paper presented to the 8th Writing and Computers Conference. Institute of Education, London University, September 1995.
14. BORKO, H. and BERNIER, C.L. Abstracting concepts and methods. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
15. ARMSTRONG, C.J. Metadata, PICS and quality. Ariadne, Issue 9. At http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue9/ PICS/
16. Frequently updated details of the Resource Description Framework's progress can be found at http:// www.w3.org/
17. The draft is scheduled for publication in December, 1997. Details will be published at http://www.w3.org/