The Comparative Results of Subject Retrieval and Citation Search

• Main Authors: Huei-Ying Tu, 杜惠英
• Other Authors: Ting-Ming Lai
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 1999
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/97921999986026195919

碩士 === 淡江大學 === 教育資料科學學系 === 87 === The purpose of this study is applying two different retrieval literature methods on the same quest and then evaluating and comparing their indexing outcome to decide the differences on retrieval performance. CompendexWeb is used as the subject retrieval database while SCI Expanded the citation search database. 40 subjects had been collected and raised 42 retrieval questions. Including coupled bibliography, this paper provided the subjects with 1,181 pieces of literature paper for relevance judgement. In search of the answers for this study, the researcher examined 12 items of data analysis, applying the statistical tests to assert the hypothesis. The results of this study are as follow: 1. The percentage outcome of subject retrieval method was twice the volume of citation search. That was 67.5% of the total literature retrieval volume. 2. From the overlap and the uniqueness, one can conclude the two sets of literature data that respectively using subject retrieval and citation search method can be seen as an independent data set. Using the two retrieval methods increased the completeness of retrieval information. 3. The relevance scores for using subject retrieval method data set had a large margin; using citation search method data set generally had a tendency of high relevance scores. The average relevance scores of the latter were higher than that of the former. 4. The scores for “relevant literature groups” applying the two retrieval methods contained no differences. 5. There was obvious association between the retrieval methods and precision ratio. Using citation search method scored a higher value of precision ratio. 6. Information seekers subjectively determined the relevant ranks of the literature, quite different from that of the automatically calculating ranks of the system. 7. The citation volume for every seminal work averaged 19 pieces. However, 82% of the seminal works contained less than 18 pieces of citation volume. 8. The average relevance score for “high coupled bibliography” was 62.04, higher than that of subject retrieval method, 52.19, and citation search method, 60.05. 9. The relevance scores for coupling search and citation search method surpassed that of subject retrieval. Meanwhile, there was no obvious difference between coupling search method and citation search method.