Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.: Why full-text misses some relevant documents : an analysis of documents not retrieved by CCML or MEDIS (1989) 0.00
```
0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=3564,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
```
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.

Imprint

Medford, New Jersey : Learned Information

Source

ASIS'89. Managing information and technology. Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Washington D.C., 30.10.-2.11.1989. Vol.26. Ed.by J. Katzer and G.B. Newby
McKinin, E.J.; Sievert, M.E.; Johnson, D.; Mitchell, J.A.: ¬The Medline/full-text research project (1991) 0.00
```
0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 5385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=5385,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5385, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5385)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
```
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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991), S.297-307

Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Types