Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0026742492 = product of:
  0.0053484985 = sum of:
    0.0053484985 = product of:
      0.010696997 = sum of:
        0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 8569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010696997 = score(doc=8569,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 8569, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=8569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Full text come in 2 varieties - the online style of full text, which often includes a compilation of text from many sources and which may growth into a very large database of text without pictures, and the CD-ROM style of full text, which usually represents a single journal, book or series but often includes graphics, especially if the title is a text book or encyclopedia from the original publisher. Neither type of product encompasses the ideal - 'full' full text, which could be described as a variety of sources with all accompanying tables, figures and illustrations, and complete use of references and logical links between documents. 'Full' full text would be researcher's ideal tool, making many of the theoretical advantages of computerized research into reality. The impediments to realizing the ideal full text product are rooted in the variant production processes at publishing and printing house. Printing and production is still bound by their traditional status as an art, and even computerization has left open tremendous production leeway within a single changed systems, which means that a single title may exist in multiple, and incompatible, versions over a span of years. The technical challenges in producing 'full' full text are discussed, along with a strategy for standardization and the vision CD Plus has for the future of real, full full text

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 5385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=5385,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5385, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This project was designed to test the relative efficacy of index terms and full-text for the retrieval of documents in those MEDLINE journals for which full-text searching was also available. The full-text files used were MEDIS from Mead Data Central and CCML from BRS Information Technologies. One hundred clinical medical topics were searches in these two files as well as the MEDLINE file to accumulate the necessary data. It was found that full-text identified significantly more relevant articles than did the indexed file. Most relevant items missed in the full-text files, but identified in MEDLINE, were missed because the searcher failed to account for some aspect of natural language, used a logical or positional operator that was too restrictive, or included a concept which was implied, but not expressed in the natural language. Very few of the unique relevant full-text citations would have been retrievaed by title or abstract alone. Finally, as of July, 1990 the more current issue of a journal was just as likely to appear in MEDLINE as in one of the full-text files.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2241,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The diffusion of the Internet has radically expanded the readily available sources for information of all types. Information that was once obtained second-hand from friends and acquaintances-the traditional "two-step flow"-is now found easily through the Internet. The authors make use of survey data to explore this thesis in regards to information sources about genetic testing and the influence of the Internet an the information seeking behaviors of the public. A telephone survey of a random sample of 882 adults asked them about their knowledge of, concerns about, and interest in genetic testing. Respondents were most likely to first turn to the Internet for information about cancer genetics, second to public libraries, and third to medical doctors. Overall, doctors were the most likely source to be consulted when second and third choices are considered. Age, income, and self-reported understanding of genetics are shown to be predictors of whether someone goes to medical professionals for advice, rather than to the Internet or public library. The results raise questions about the apparent tendency of the public to regard the Internet as the best source of information an complex topics like genetics, for which it may be ill-suited.

Type

a