IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/amedoc/v18y1967i4p216-227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of questions addressed to a medical reference retrieval system: Comparison of question and system terminologies

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Flood

Abstract

Requests for subject and author searches submitted to the Medical Documentation Service of the Library of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia were studied. A total of 483 subject reference questions were analyzed for the number of question terms matching system subject headings (M), number of question terms translatable to system subject headings (T), number of stop‐list words (S), and number of untranslatable words (U), using the judgment of the author. The average question had one M term or 22% M, one T term or 21% T, two S words or 38% S, and one U word or 19% U. Thus 81% of the average question was accounted for by M + T + S; in addition, 46% of the questions had no U words. Analysis of variance failed to show significant (5% level) differences between doctors' and lawyers' questions or between negotiated and nonnegotiated questions in number of M, T, S, or U. Study of limitations on searches for the 483 subject search requests and 38 requests for author searches showed that the requestor rarely stipulated type of material to be covered, languages to be included, time period to be covered, cost, or time for completion.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Flood, 1967. "Analysis of questions addressed to a medical reference retrieval system: Comparison of question and system terminologies," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 216-227, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:18:y:1967:i:4:p:216-227
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.5090180404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090180404
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.5090180404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:18:y:1967:i:4:p:216-227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.