Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: Understanding Rank

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When you do a search, you can sort the results bibliographically alphabetical or by “rank”. What is Rank?

Rank refers to the search engine’s “best guess” as to the relevance of the result to the search you specified. The exact method of ranking used varies a bit depending on the search. In its most basic level, when you specify a single search term, rank looks at the density of the matches for the word in the document, and how close to the beginning of the document they appear as a measure of importance to the paper’s topic. The documents with the most matches and where the term is deemed to have the most importance, have the highest “relevance” and are ranked first (presented first).

When you specify more than one term to appear anywhere in the article, the method is similar, but the search engine looks at how many of those terms appear, and how close together they appear, how close to the beginning of the document, and can even take into account the relative rarity of the search terms and their density in the retrieved file, where infrequent terms count more heavily than common terms.

To see a simple example of this, search for the words (not the phrase, so no quotes):

unconscious communications

Look at the density of matches in each document on the first page of the hits. Then go to the last page of matched documents, and observe the density of matches within the documents.

A more complex search illustrates this nicely with a single page and only 15 matches:

counter*tr* w/25 “liv* out” w/25 enact*

There are a lot of word forms and variants of the words (due to the * wildcards) above that can match, but the proximity (w/25) clause limits the potential for matching. What’s interesting here though is how easily you can see the match density decrease as you view down the short list.

The end result of selecting order by rank is that the search engine’s best “guess” as to which articles are more relevant appear higher on the list than less relevant articles.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Zalusky, S. (2008). Commentary on Arnold Goldberg's “Some Limits of the Boundary Concept”. Psychoanal Q., 77(3):897-905.

(2008). Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 77(3):897-905

Commentary on Arnold Goldberg's “Some Limits of the Boundary Concept” Related Papers

Sharon Zalusky

I want to thank Arnold Goldberg for giving us this important opportunity to reflect upon a quintessential psychoanalytic concept: the notion of boundaries. Goldberg argues that in our current climate of psychoanalytic pluralism, the concept of boundaries has questionable usefulness. He suggests that there has often been a failure amongst some colleagues to discriminate between the technical and moral dimensions of boundaries. Goldberg proposes separating these domains and replacing the concept of boundaries with the concept of rules, in order to circumvent problems that arise from conflating technical with moral dimensions.

In principle, I am in agreement with the basic premises of this paper. However, I do not necessarily agree with the prescribed solutions. In my discussion, I will make two points: the first definitional, the second clinical.

Boundary as a Multidimensional Concept

As analysts, we treat the word boundary as we do so many other foundational psychoanalytic concepts, as if it enjoyed a shared unitary meaning. Plainly, it does not. As Goldberg points out, various theoretical orientations conceptualize boundaries differently.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2021, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.