Chu, C.M.; Ajiferuke, I.: Quality of indexing in library and information science databases (1989)
0.02
0.02144916 = product of:
0.064347476 = sum of:
0.064347476 = product of:
0.12869495 = sum of:
0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12869495 = score(doc=771,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 771, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=771)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This study compares the quality of indexing in library and information science databases (Library Literature (LL), Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), and Information Science Abstracts (ISA)). An alternative method to traditional retrieval effectiveness tests, suggested by White and Griffith in their paper 'Quality of indexing in online databases' is adopted to measure the quality of the controlled vocabulary of each database ... Our analysis shows that LISA has the best quality of indexing out of the three databases
