{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02231404958677686, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006611570247933884, 'mean_word_length': 5.441489361702128, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Biology Article Retrieval from Various Databases: Making Good Choices with Limited Resources.

If the top tier indexing resource in a discipline is not available on an ongoing basis for undergraduate student use, can acceptable article retrieval be obtained using other available resources or combinations of resources? This paper examines a single search term comparison of the biological research literature retrieved from BIOSIS Previews as well as eight other databases: BasicBIOSIS, ArticleFirst, ECO, ProQuest, WilsonWeb, SciFinder Scholar, HighWire, and MEDLINE. Comparison is also made with results from the recently available beta version of Google Scholar. A combination of databases yielded a result rate of 59% of the most recent eight years of BIOSIS results. A 51% return rate compared with BIOSIS could be obtained from searching only two major interfaces, the FirstSearch provider for ArticleFirst and ECO along with SciFinder Scholar. Google Scholar provided a 56% retrieval in comparison with the most recent BIOSIS results. A significant benefit of the Google Scholar search was the sizable number (N=69) of additional articles retrieved that were not found in BIOSIS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]