The abstract is a short summary that sums up very briefly what has been done as well as the main results. For example: Three thermistor-string were installed in the Van Mijen fjord (at Cape Amsterdam, Svartodden and Frysjaodden) and they measured the ice temperatures between 20 February and 1 May. Manual ice thickness measurements were also conducted periodically. The thermistorŽstrings showed that the ice thickness grew from 0.6 m to 1.0 m during the period for all three strings. The manual thickness measurements show the same ice growth but a higher ice thickness (0.7 m to 1.1 m). The results are compared to analytical models and the coefficient w in Stefan's law became about 0.32 for the three cases.
This section gives the background, puts the project into a scientific framework and sums up the present knowledge (references to the most important literaŽture). The key questions here is: "Why is this stuff done?".
When writing scientific report, articles etc the main point is to communicate the work that has been done in a clear and concise way. It is important to give WHY the work has been done (Introduction), HOW and with WHICH methods (Theory and Methods), WHAT are the main results (Results), WHAT do the results mean (Analysis and discussion) and finally to summaries the results (Abstract and Conclusions). Some of the guidelines and rules given below may help you to achieve this goal. Several books designed for this purpose exist citep (book in this) and they give advices on everything from how to present tables to advices when it comes to the English language.
In the FRAM reports the references are to be given as the following example shows: Leppairanta (1993) gives an overview of analytical and numerical methods to calculate ice growth and ice thickness. The analytical methods are normally based upon Stefan's law, and the numerical models consider conductive heat transfer where the convective heat transfer in sea ice is accounted for by using equivalent thermal properties (Schwerdtfeger, 1963). The first numerical model was developed by Maykut and Understerner (1971) and they predict an annual average thickness of 2.88 m. The role of short wave radiation has been investigated by among others Maykut and Perovich (1987). But the two basic problems seem to be the estimation of the heat transfer from the ocean (the oceanic flux) and the physical parameters of the snow cover. The contribution from first-year sea ice ridges to the heat exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere is more complicated, but some work on the thermal balance of ridges has been done by Lepparanta et al. (1995).
In the list of references the references should be listed alphabetically as given below.
2. Literature review
If the literature review is an important part of the work it can be natural to put it in a separate section.
The necessary theory is derived and explained (in your own words!). It is very important to clarify which assumptions you are using and which part of the theory, or which terms, effects etc you aim at investigating (for example in which way the representative thermal properties as given by Schwerdtfeger (1963) are able to grasp the convective heat transfer in warm sea ice).
In the Introduction and the Theory you have explained why and what you want to do on a general level. In this section you explain more detailed what you have done (or plan to do), how you have worked/will work. If you do fieldwork it is important to explain where you have been. How the measurements were done, which instruments you were using, which sources of errors that may exist, how you deal with uncertainties etc. When working with data collection it is important to explain the nature of your sources, and identify possible uncerŽtainties, differences in measuring techniques etc. If you are doing numerical work, this section explains things such as the solution techniques, stability, boundary conditions etc.
The importance of this section is that it makes it possible for people who read this report later to understand what you have done and how to interpret the results.
Where, What, How, When and Who.
This section presents the main results in an clear way. The results may be given in more detail in the Appendix, or attached on a CD. Only your own originally derived results are to be included in this section. The results can be presented in Tables, Figures and be included into the main text. There are many ways to create good tables, and the main point is that the table is easy to understand. However, some general rules are to be followed when it comes to Tables and Figures. In the legend (the text below the figure) all information that is required to understand the Table/Figure is to be given. The Table/Figure should contain the necessary units, so that is perfectly clear which variable is given in which unit. The axis in a Figure should always be named so that it is clear which variable(s) that is given on which axis.
6. Analysis and discussion
In this section you should discuss and analyze your results in relation to the earlier described theory and methods, and in relation to the literature. It should be clear what the scientific outcome of your work is.
Sum up the main work. This part should (like the Abstract) contain what you did and the main results (from the Results and the Analysis and discussion sections).
Lepparanta, M. (1993). A review of analytical models of sea-ice growth. Atmosphere- ocean, (31 (1)). 123-138.
Lepparanta, M., Lensu, M., Koslof, P., and Witch, B. (1995). The life story of a first-ycar sea ice ridge. Cold Regions Science and Technology, (23). 279-290.
Maykut, G. and Perovich, D. K. (1987). The role of short wave radiation in the summer decay of a sea ice cover. Journal of Geophysical Research, 92. 7032-7099.
Maykut, G. and Understerner, N. (1971). Some results from a time- dependent thermodynamical model of sea ice. Journal of Geophysical research, 76(6). 1550-1575.
Schwerdtfeger, P. (1963). The thermal properties of sea ice. Journal of Glaciology, (4 (36)).