Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.040320244 = product of:
  0.060480364 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.03380758 = product of:
      0.06761516 = sum of:
        0.06761516 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06761516 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Pages

S.22-25

0.033380013 = product of:
  0.050070018 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.024192145 = product of:
  0.036288217 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Date

9. 1.1996 10:22:31

0.01577687 = product of:
  0.04733061 = sum of:
    0.04733061 = product of:
      0.09466122 = sum of:
        0.09466122 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09466122 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.014225486 = product of:
  0.042676456 = sum of:
    0.042676456 = weight(_text_:on in 6204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042676456 = score(doc=6204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 6204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6204)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2965)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=2494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An experiment was conducted using 3 data bases in library and information science - Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Information Science Abstracts and ERIC - to investigate some of the main factors affecting on-line searching: effectiveness of search vocabularies, combinations of fields searched, and overlaps among databases. Natural language, controlled vocabulary and a mixture of natural language and controlled terms were tested using different fields of bibliographic records. Also discusses a comparative evaluation of single and multi-data base searching, measuring the overlap among data bases and their influence upon on-line searching.

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=3566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A retrieval experiment was conducted to compare on-line searching using terms opposed to citations. This is the first study in which a single data base was used to retrieve two equivalent sets for each query, one using terms found in the bibliographic record to achieve higher recall, and the other using documents. Reports on the use of a second citation searching strategy. Overall, by using both types of search keys, the total recall is increased.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=1659,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The model of operationalist and conceptualist searching styles describes searching behavior of experienced online searchers. It is based on the systematic observation of five experienced online searchers doing their regular, job-related searches, and on the analysis of 10 to 13 searches conducted by each of them. Operationalist searchers aim at optimal strategies to achieve precise retrieval; they use a large range of system capabilities in their interaction. They preserve the specific meaning of the request, and the aim of their interactions is an answer set representing the request precisely. Conceptualist searchers analyze a request by seeking to fit it into a faceted structure. They first enter the facet that represents the most important aspect of the request. Their search is then centered on retrieving subsets from this primary set by introducing additional facets. In contrast to the operationalists, they are primarily concerned with recall. During the interaction they preserve the faceted structure, but may change the specific meaning of the request. Although not comprehensive, the model aids in recognizing special and individual characteristics of searching behavior which provide explanations of previous research and guidelines for further investigations into the search process

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 3560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=3560,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3560, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3560)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

40 doctoral student were trained to search INSPEC or ERIC on DIALOG using either the Sci-Mate Menu or native commands. In comparison with 20 control subjects for whom a free search was performed by an intermediary, the experiment subjects were no less satisfied with their retrievals, which were fewer in number but higher in precision than the retrievals produced by the intermediaries. Use of the menu interface did not affect quality of retrieval or user satisfaction, although subjects instructed to use native commands required less training time and interacted more with the data bases than did subjects trained on the Sci-Mate Menu. INSPEC subjects placed a higher monetary value on their searches than did ERIC subjects, indicated that they would make more frequent use of ddata bases in the future, and interacted more with the data base.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=4150,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A recent study begun at Case Western Reserve University and continued at Rutgers University compared the transcripts of 200 DIALOG searches conducted by 36 experienced searchers on real questions submitted by academic and industrial researchers. Relevance judgements by the researchers were used to give recall and precision scores to each search result. Findings included: a low degree of overlap between searches on the same question in selection of search terms or items retrieved; the more often an item was retrieved by different searchers, the more likely it was to be judged relevant; recall and precision were not necessarly inversly related; there was a significant positive impact on recall/precision from using more cycles (a sequence from selecting terms to displaying results); serious uncorrectd errors were a major problem in poor searches and proper selection of terms a key to successful searches.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=3458,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A retrievalsystem was built to find individuals with appropriate expertise within a large research establishment on the basis of their authored documents. The expert-locating system uses a new method for automatic indexing and retrieval based on singular value decomposition, a matrix decomposition technique related to the factor analysis. Organizational groups, represented by the documents they write, and the terms contained in these documents, are fit simultaneously into a 100-dimensional "semantic" space. User queries are positioned in the semantic space, and the most similar groups are returned to the user. Here we compared the standard vector-space model with this new technique and found that combining the two methods improved performance over either alone. We also examined the effects of various experimental variables on the system`s retrieval accuracy. In particular, the effects of: term weighting functions in the semantic space construction and in query construction, suffix stripping, and using lexical units larger than a a single word were studied.

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=4160,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The inexact nature of documnet retrieval gives rise to a fundamental recall precision trade-off: generally, recall improves at the expense of precision, or precision improves at the expense of recall. This trade-off os borne out emipically and has qualitatively intuitive explanations. In this article, we explore this realtionship mathematically to explain it further. We see that the recall-precision trade-off hinges on a declaration in the proportion of relevant documents which are retrieved, successively, over time. Futher we examine several mathematical functions sharing this property and conclude that the equation that best modealls recall as a function of time is a logarhitm of a quadratic function. Our conclusion meets the following requirements: the function we derive predicts non-decreasing recall over time until the last relevant document is retrieved (regardless of the density of relevant documents in the collection) without imposing any artificial restrictions on either what percentage of the collection would need to be examined to achieve perfect recall or what the level of precision would be at that time. Other models examined fail to meet oner or more of these criteria.

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes information system and its various components-index file construstion, query formulation and searching. Discusses an indexing system, and brings out the need for its evaluation. Explains the concept of the efficiency of indexing systems and discusses factors which control this efficiency. Gives criteria for evaluation. Discusses recall and precision ratios, as also noise ratio, novelty ratio, and exhaustivity and specificity and the impact of each on the efficiency of indexing system. Mention also various steps for evaluation.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 1167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=1167,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1167, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1167)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study systematically compares retrievals on 11 topics across five well-known data bases, with MEDLINE's subject indexing as a focus. Each topic was posed by a researcher in the medical behavioral sciences. Each was searches in MEDLINE, EXCERPTA MEDICA, and PSYCHINFO, which permit descriptor searches, and in SCISEARCH and SOCIAL SCISEARCH, which express topics through cited references. Searches on each topic were made with (1) descriptors, (2) cited references, and (3) natural language (a capabiblity common to all five data bases). The researchers who posed the topics judged the results. In every case, the set of records judged relevant was used to to calculate recall, precision, and novelty ratios. Overall, MEDLINE had the highest recall percentage (37%), followed by SSCI (31%). All searches resulted in high precision ratios; novelty ratios of data bases and searches varied widely. Differences in record format among data bases affected the success of the natural language retrievals. Some 445 documents judged relevant were not retrieved from MEDLINE using its descriptors; they were found in MEDLINE through natural language or in an alternative data base. An analysis was performed to examine possible faults in MEDLINE subject indexing as the reason for their nonretrieval. However, no patterns of indexing failure could be seen in those documents subsequently found in MEDLINE through known-item searches. Documents not found in MEDLINE primarily represent failures of coverage - articles were from nonindexed or selectively indexed journals

0.00622365 = product of:
  0.01867095 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 1522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=1522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1522, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1522)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the National Federation of Astracting and Information Services, Philadelphia, 28 Feb-2 Mar 88. In recent years, the amount and the variety of available machine-readable data, new technologies have been introduced, such as high density storage devices, and fancy graphic displays useful for information transformation and access. New approaches have also been considered for processing the stored data based on the construction of knowledge bases representing the contents and structure of the information, and the use of expert system techniques to control the user-system interactions. Provides a brief evaluation of the new information processing technologies, and of the software methods proposed for information manipulation.

0.00622365 = product of:
  0.01867095 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on a comparison of the postcoordinate retrieval effectiveness of two indexing languages: LCSH and PRECIS. The effect of augmenting each with title words was also studies. The database for the study was over 15.000 UK MARC records. Users returned 5.326 relevant judgements for citations retrieved for 61 SDI profiles, representing a wide variety of subjects. Results are reported in terms of precision and relative recall. Pure/applied sciences data and social science data were analyzed separately. Cochran's significance tests for ratios were used to interpret the findings. Recall emerged as the more important measure discriminating the behavior of the two languages. Addition of title words was found to improve recall of both indexing languages significantly. A direct relationship was observed between recall and exhaustivity. For the social sciences searches, recalls from PRECIS alone and from PRECIS with title words were significantly higher than those from LCSH alone and from LCSH with title words, respectively. Corresponding comparisons for the pure/applied sciences searches revealed no significant differences

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A pilot study on the relative retrieval effectiveness of semantic relevance (by terms) and pragmatic relevance (by citations) is reported. A single database has been constructed to provide access by both descriptors and cited references. For each question from a set of queries, two equivalent sets were retrieved. All retrieved items were evaluated by subject experts for relevance to their originating queries. We conclude that there are essentially two types of relevance at work resulting in two different sets of documents. Using both search methods to create a union set is likely to increase recall. Those few retrieved by the intersection of the two methods tend to result in higher precision. Suggestions are made to develop a front-end system to display the overlapping items for higher precision and to manipulate and rank the union set sets retrieved by the two search modes for improved output

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 3563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=3563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3563)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The availability of two full text data bases in the clinical medical journal literature, MEDIS from Mead Data Central and CCML from BRS Information Technologies, provided an opportunity to compare the efficacy of the full text to the traditional, indexed system, MEDLINE for retrieval effectiveness. 100 searches were solicited from an academic health sciences library and the request were searched on all 3 data bases. The results were compared and preliminary analysis suggests that the full text data bases retrieve a greater number of relevant citations and MEDLINE achieves higher precision.