Cited by 48Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorLibrary Science and InformationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Classical databases and knowledge organization: A case for boolean retrieval and human decision‐making during searches

Hjørland, Birger·2015·Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and “information literate” users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. W arner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library‐oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the “selection power” of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.23250

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 120 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hjørland, B.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Hjørland, Birger
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-04
Volume
66
Issue
8
Pages
1559-1575
ISSN
  • 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
  • 2330-1643
OpenAlex
W1814308847
Cited by
47
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
Boolean retrieval, bibliographic databases, knowledge organization, information literacy, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, search engines, retrieval system design, information professions, information science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review