Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.02
0.022215564 = product of:
0.044431128 = sum of:
0.044431128 = sum of:
0.008669697 = weight(_text_:a in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008669697 = score(doc=3510,freq=10.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
0.03576143 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03576143 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A known-item search for abstracts to previously retrieved references revealed that 2 documents from the same annual volume had been indexed twice. Working from the premise that the whole volume may have been double-indexed, a search strategy was devised that limited the journal code to the year in question. 57 references were retrieved, comprising 28 pairs of duplicates plus a citation for the whole volume. Author, title, source and descriptors were requested off-line and the citations were paired with their duplicates. The 4 categories of descriptors-major descriptors, minor descriptors, subheadings and check-tags-were compared for depth and consistency of indexing and lessons that might be learnt from the study are discussed.
- Source
- Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
- Type
- a
