-
Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.: Why full-text misses some relevant documents : an analysis of documents not retrieved by CCML or MEDIS (1989)
0.02
0.021590449 = product of:
0.043180898 = sum of:
0.043180898 = sum of:
0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005740611 = score(doc=3564,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037440285 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Searches conducted as part of the MEDLINE/Full-Text Research Project revealed that the full-text data bases of clinical medical journal articles (CCML (Comprehensive Core Medical Library) from BRS Information Technologies, and MEDIS from Mead Data Central) did not retrieve all the relevant citations. An analysis of the data indicated that 204 relevant citations were retrieved only by MEDLINE. A comparison of the strategies used on the full-text data bases with the text of the articles of these 204 citations revealed that 2 reasons contributed to these failure. The searcher often constructed a restrictive strategy which resulted in the loss of relevant documents; and as in other kinds of retrieval, the problems of natural language caused the loss of relevant documents.
- Date
- 9. 1.1996 10:22:31
-
Pao, M.L.: Retrieval differences between term and citation indexing (1989)
0.00
0.0023435948 = product of:
0.0046871896 = sum of:
0.0046871896 = product of:
0.009374379 = sum of:
0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009374379 = score(doc=3566,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A retrieval experiment was conducted to compare on-line searching using terms opposed to citations. This is the first study in which a single data base was used to retrieve two equivalent sets for each query, one using terms found in the bibliographic record to achieve higher recall, and the other using documents. Reports on the use of a second citation searching strategy. Overall, by using both types of search keys, the total recall is increased.
-
Sullivan, M.V.; Borgman, C.L.: Bibliographic searching by end-users and intermediaries : front-end software vs native DIALOG commands (1988)
0.00
0.0014351527 = product of:
0.0028703054 = sum of:
0.0028703054 = product of:
0.005740611 = sum of:
0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005740611 = score(doc=3560,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3560, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3560)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- 40 doctoral student were trained to search INSPEC or ERIC on DIALOG using either the Sci-Mate Menu or native commands. In comparison with 20 control subjects for whom a free search was performed by an intermediary, the experiment subjects were no less satisfied with their retrievals, which were fewer in number but higher in precision than the retrievals produced by the intermediaries. Use of the menu interface did not affect quality of retrieval or user satisfaction, although subjects instructed to use native commands required less training time and interacted more with the data bases than did subjects trained on the Sci-Mate Menu. INSPEC subjects placed a higher monetary value on their searches than did ERIC subjects, indicated that they would make more frequent use of ddata bases in the future, and interacted more with the data base.
-
Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.; Slough, M.: ¬A comparison of indexing and full-text for the retrieval of clinical medical literature (1988)
0.00
0.0014351527 = product of:
0.0028703054 = sum of:
0.0028703054 = product of:
0.005740611 = sum of:
0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005740611 = score(doc=3563,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3563, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3563)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The availability of two full text data bases in the clinical medical journal literature, MEDIS from Mead Data Central and CCML from BRS Information Technologies, provided an opportunity to compare the efficacy of the full text to the traditional, indexed system, MEDLINE for retrieval effectiveness. 100 searches were solicited from an academic health sciences library and the request were searched on all 3 data bases. The results were compared and preliminary analysis suggests that the full text data bases retrieve a greater number of relevant citations and MEDLINE achieves higher precision.
