Cavanagh, A.K.: ¬A comparison of the retrieval performance of multi-disciplinary table-of-contents databases with conventional specialised databases (1997)
0.01
0.0080434345 = product of:
0.024130303 = sum of:
0.024130303 = product of:
0.048260607 = sum of:
0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048260607 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In an endeavour to compare retrieval performance and periodical overlap in a biological field, the same topic was searched on 5 Table of Contents (ToC) databases and 3 specialised biological databases. Performance was assessed in terms of precision and recall. The ToC databases in general had higher precision in that most material found was relevant. They were less satisfactory in recall where some located fewer than 50% of identified high relevance articles. Subject specific databases had overall better recall but lower precision with many more false drops and items of low relevance occuring. These differences were associated with variations in indexing practice and policy and searching capabilities of the various databases. In a further comparison, it was found that the electronic databases, as a group, identified only 75% of the articles known from independent source to have been published in the field
