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.

Smith, H.F. (1997). Creative Misreading: Why We Talk Past Each Other. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 45:335-357.

(1997). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 45:335-357

Creative Misreading: Why We Talk Past Each Other

Henry F. Smith

A close look at Gedo's recent paper on working through reveals a number of devices used in the development of competing psychoanalytic theories, devices which result in analysts talking past each other. Starting with the notion that all theorists “misread” their predecessors, the author examines how different views of the past create confusion in the dialogue between Gedo and his commentators. He then takes up the issue of how data emerging from the neurosciences can be used to support many different psychoanalytic theories and suggests that there will always be a “metaphorical leap” from one frame of reference to the other. Finally, he examines how the drawing of sharp dichotomies both within a theory and between one theory and another misrepresents analytic work and exaggerates differences between one point of view and another. Thus, various devices that are used to buttress one version of analytic theory make it more difficult to develop a more integrated theory and to correlate psychoanalytic data with those emerging from the neurosciences.

[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 © 2020, 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.