Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.04
0.042249024 = product of:
0.12674707 = sum of:
0.12674707 = sum of:
0.079625934 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079625934 = score(doc=3510,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.41867304 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047121134 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
