External descriptions of Web pages: Their features and their relationships to Web page elements

Libri

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 36-47

  Craven, Timothy C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842841679     PISSN: 00242667     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/LIBR.2002.36     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Almind, T.C. and Ingwersen, P. 1997. Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to 'Webmetrics'. Journal of Documentation 53 (4): 404-426.
2. Amitay, E. 2001. What lays in the layout. URL: http:// www.ics.mq.edu.au/~einat/thesis/ [viewed February 20, 2002].
3. Craven, T.C. 1988. Text network display editing with special reference to the production of customized abstracts. Canadian Journal of Information Science 13 (1/2): 59-68.
4. Craven, T.C. 1991. Algorithms for graphic display of sentence dependency structures. Information Processing and Management 27 (6): 603-613.
5. Craven, T.C. 1993. A computer-aided abstracting tool kit. Canadian Journal of Information Science 18 (2): 19-31.
6. th ASIS Annual Meeting 1996 (Volume 33), Baltimore, Maryland, October 21-24, 1996. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today: 203-208.
7. Craven, T.C. 1998. Human creation of abstracts with selected computer-assistance tools. Information Research 3 (4): paper 47. URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ ~is/publications/infres/paper47.html [viewed February 20, 2002].
8. Craven, T.C. 2000. Features of DESCRIPTION META tags in public home pages. Journal of Information Science 26 (5): 303-311.
9. Craven, T.C. 2001. 'DESCRIPTION' META tags in locally linked Web pages. Aslib Proceedings 53 (6), 203-216.
10. Craven, T.C. Submitted. HTML tags as extraction cues for Web page description construction.
11. Endres-Niggemeyer, B. 1998. Summarizing information. Berlin: Springer.
12. Endres-Niggemeyer, B., Waumans, W., and Yamashita, H. 1991. Modelling summary writing by introspection: a small-scale demonstrative study. Text 11 (4): 523-552.
13. Egghe, L. 2001. A noninformetric analysis of the relationship between citation age and journal productivity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (5): 371-377.
14. Haas, S.W.; Grams, E.S. 2000. Readers, authors, and page structure: a discussion of four questions arising from a content analysis of Web pages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51 (2): 181-192.
15. Harter, S.P.; Ford, C.E. 2000. Web-based analyses of e-journal impact: approaches, problems, and issues. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51 (13): 1159-1176.
16. Henshaw, R.; Valauskas, E.J. 2001. Metadata as a catalyst: experiments with metadata and search engines in the Internet journal, First Monday. Libri 51 (2): 86-101.
17. King, D.L. 1998. Library home page design: a comparison of page layout for front-ends to ARL library Web sites. College and Research Libraries 59 (5): 458-465.
18. Paice, C. 1990. Constructing literature abstracts by computer: techniques and prospects. Information Processing and Management 26 (1): 171-186.
19. Paice, C.D. 1994. Automatic abstracting. In: Kent A., and Hall, C.M., eds. Encyclopedia of library and information science, volume 53 (supplement 16). New York: Dekker: 16-27.
20. Pitkin, R.M.; Branagan, M.A.; Burmeister, L.F. 1999. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 281 (12): 1110-1111.
21. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.
22. Thomas, C.F.; Griffin, L.S. 1998. Who will create the metadata for the Internet? First Monday 3 (12). URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_12/ thomas/ [viewed February 20, 2002].
23. Turner, T.P.; Brackbill, L. 1998. Rising to the top: evaluating the use of the HTML meta tag to improve retrieval of World Wide Web documents through Internet search engines. Library Resources and Technical Services 42 (4): 258-271.
24. 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.