Brenner, S.H.; McKinin, E.J.: CINAHL and MEDLINE : a comparison of indexing practices (1989)
0.00
0.0018428253 = product of:
0.0036856506 = sum of:
0.0036856506 = product of:
0.0073713013 = sum of:
0.0073713013 = weight(_text_:a in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073713013 = score(doc=2843,freq=6.0), product of:
0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041389145 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A random sample of 50 nursing articles indexed in both MEDLINE and CINAHL during 1986 was used for comparing indexing pratices. Indexing was analysed by counting the number of major descriptors, the number of major and minor descriptors, the number of indexing access points, the number of common indexing access points, and the number and type of unique indexing points. The study results indicate: there are few differences in the number of major descriptors used, MEDLINE uses almost twice as many descriptors, MEDLINE has almost twice as many indexing access points, and MEDLINE and CINAHL provide few common access points.
- Type
- a
