Abstracts and abstracting in knowledge discovery

Library Trends

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 234-248

  Pinto, Maria ^a   Lancaster, F W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033467584     PISSN: 00242594     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Borko, H., & Bernier, C. L. (1975). Abstracting concepts and methods. New York: Academic Press.
2. Brew, C., & Thompson. H. S. (1994). Automatic evaluation of computer generated text: A progress report on the TextEval project. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Workshop (March 8-11, 1994) (pp. 108-113). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
3. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1-14.
4. Cooper, W. S. (1969). Is inter-indexer consistency a hobgoblin? American Documentation, 20(3), 268-278.
5. Cremmins, E. T. (1996). The art of abstracting, 2d ed. Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press.
6. Dronberger, G. B., & Kowitz, G. T. (1975). Abstract readability as a factor in information systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(2), 108-111.
7. Dym, E. D. (1967). Relevance predictability: I. Investigation, background and procedures. In A. Kent, O. E. Taulbee, J. Belzer, & G. D. Goldstein (Eds.), Electronic handling of information: Testing and evaluation (pp. 175-185). Washington, DC: Thompson Book Co.
8. Edmundson, H. P.; Oswald, V. A., Jr.; & Wyllys, R. E. (1959). Automatic indexing and abstracting of the contents of documents. Los Angeles, CA: Planning Research Corporation.
9. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Maier, E.; & Sigel, A. (1995). How to implement a naturalistic model of abstracting: Four core working steps of an expert abstractor. Information Processing & Management, 31(5), 631-674.
10. Fidel, R. (1986). Writing abstracts for free-text searching. Journal of Documentation, 42(1), 11-21.
11. Harman, D. (1997). The TREC conferences. In K. Sparck Jones & P. Willett (Eds.), Readings in information retrieval (pp. 247-256). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
12. Hartley, J. (1994). Three ways to improve the clarity of journal abstracts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(1), 331-343.
13. Hartley, J., & Sydes, M. (1996). Which layout do you prefer? An analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts. Journal of Information Science, 22(1), 27-37.
14. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; & Blurton, A. (1996). Obtaining information accurately and quickly: Are structured abstracts more efficient? Journal of Information Science, 22(5), 349-356.
15. Haynes, R. B. (1993). More informative abstracts: Current status and evaluation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 595-597.
16. Jacobs, P. S. (Ed.). (1992). Text-based intelligent systems: Current research and practice in information extraction and retrieval. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Keen, E. M. (1976). A retrieval comparison of six published indexes in the field of library and information science. Unesco Bulletin for Libraries, 30(1), 26-36.
18. Kent, A.; Belzer, J.; Kurfeerst, M.; Dym, E. D.; Shirey, D. L.; & Bose, A. (1967). Relevance predictability in information retrieval systems. Methods of Information in Medicine, 6(2), 45-51.
19. King, R. (1976). A comparison of the readability of abstracts with their source documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(2), 118-121.
20. Lancaster, F. W. (1998). Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice, 2d ed. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.
21. Lancaster, F. W., & Smith, L. C. (In press). Intelligent technologies in library and information service applications: A realistic appraisal. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
22. Lunin, L. (1967). The development of a machine-searchable index-abstract and its application to biomedical literature. In B. Flood (Ed.), Three Drexel information science-research studies (pp. 47-134). Philadelphia, PA: Drexel Press.
23. Marcus, R. S.; Benenfeld, A.R.; & Kugel, P. (1971). The user interface for the Intrex retrieval system. In D. E. Walker (Ed.), Interactive bibliographic search: The user/computer interface (pp. 159-201). Montvale, NJ: AFIPS Press.
24. Mathis, B. A. (1972). Techniques for the evaluation and improvement of computer-produced abstracts. Columbus: Ohio State University, Computer and Information Science Research Center (OSU-CISRC-TR-72-15. PB 214 675).
25. National Information Standards Organization. (1997). Guidelines for abstracts. Bethesda, MD: NISO.
26. Payne, D.; Munger, S. J.; & Altman, J. W. (1962). A textual abstracting technique: A preliminary development and evaluation support. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutes for Research (2 vols. AD 285081-285082).
27. Perry, J. W., & Kent, A. (1958). Took for machine literature searching. New York: Interscience Publishers Inc.
28. Pinto, M. (1995). Documentary abstracting: Toward a methodological model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(3), 225-234.
29. Pinto, M. (1994). Interdisciplinary approaches to the concept and practice of written text documentary content analysis (WTDCA). Journal of Documentation, 50(2), 111-133.
30. Pinto, M. (1992). El resumen documental: Principios y métodos. Madrid: La Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez.
31. Rath, G. J.; Resnick, A.; & Savage, T. R. (1961). Comparison of four types of lexical indicators of content. American Documentation, 12(2), 126-130.
32. Resnick, A. (1961). Relative effectiveness of document titles and abstracts for determining relevance of documents. Science, 134(3484), 1004-1006.
33. Salager-Meyer, F. (1991). Medical English abstracts: flow well are they structured? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(7), 528-531.
34. Salton, G. (Ed.). (1971). The SMART retrieval system: Experiments in automatic document processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35. Salton, G.; Singhal, A.; Mitra, M.; & Buckley, C. (1997). Automatic text structuring and summarization. Information Processing of Management, 33(2), 193-207.
36. Saracevic, T. (1969). Comparative effects of titles, abstracts and full texts on relevance judgements. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, 6, 293-299.
37. Shirey, D. L., & Kurfeerst, M. (1967). Relevance predictability: II. Data reduction. In A. Kent: Taulbee, O. E.; Belzer, J.; Goldstein, G. D. (Eds.), Electronic handling of information: Testing and evaluation (pp. 187-198). Washington, DC: Thompson Book Co.
38. Sparck Jones, K. (1995). Reflections on TREC. Information Processing & Management, 31(3), 291-314.
39. Tenopir, C. (1985). Full text database retrieval performance. Online Review, 9(2), 149-164.
40. Tenopir, C., & Jacsó, P. (1993). Quality of abstracts. Online, 17(3), 44-55.
41. Thompson, C. W. N. (1973). The functions of abstracts in the initial screening of technical documents by the user. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 270-276.
42. Vinsonhaler, J. F. (1966). Some behavioral indices of the validity of document abstracts. Information Storage and Retrieval, 3(1), 1-11.
43. Wheatley, A., &: Armstrong, C. J. (1997). Metadata, recall, and abstracts: Can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value? Aslib Proceedings, 49(8), 206-213.