Search (37 results, page 2 of 2)

0.004004761 = product of:
  0.028033325 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Search key resolution power is analyzed in the context of a request, i.e., among the set of search keys for the request. Methods of characterizing the resolution power of keys automatically are studied, and the effects search keys of varying resolution power have on retrieval effectiveness are analyzed. It is shown that it often is possible to identify the best key of a query while the discrimination between the remaining keys presents problems. It is also shown that query performance is improved by suitably using the best key in a structured query. The tests were run with InQuery in a subcollection of the TREC collection, which contained some 515,000 documents

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.7, S.575-583

0.003790876 = product of:
  0.02653613 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=1052,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=1052,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Technical terms and proper names constitute a major problem in dictionary-based cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). However, technical terms and proper names in different languages often share the same Latin or Greek origin, being thus spelling variants of each other. In this paper we present a novel two-step fuzzy translation technique for cross-lingual spelling variants. In the first step, transformation rules are applied to source words to render them more similar to their target language equivalents. The rules are generated automatically using translation dictionaries as source data. In the second step, the intermediate forms obtained in the first step are translated into a target language using fuzzy matching. The effectiveness of the technique was evaluated empirically using five source languages and English as a target language. The two-step technique performed better, in some cases considerably better, than fuzzy matching alone. Even using the first step as such showed promising results.

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.4, S.859-872

0.0033881254 = product of:
  0.023716876 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=949,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

0.0028605436 = product of:
  0.020023804 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Kekalainen and Jarvelin use what they term generalized, nonbinary recall and precision measures where recall is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the sum of relevance scores of all documents in the data base, and precision is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the number of documents where the relevance scores are real numbers between zero and one. Using the In-Query system and a text data base of 53,893 newspaper articles with 30 queries selected from those for which four relevance categories to provide recall measures were available, search results were evaluated by four judges. Searches were done by average key term weight, Boolean expression, and by average term weight where the terms are grouped by a synonym operator, and for each case with and without expansion of the original terms. Use of higher standards of relevance appears to increase the superiority of the best method. Some methods do a better job of getting the highly relevant documents but do not increase retrieval of marginal ones. There is evidence that generalized precision provides more equitable results, while binary precision provides undeserved merit to some methods. Generally graded relevance measures seem to provide additional insight into IR evaluation.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.13, S.1120-xxxx

0.0025674426 = product of:
  0.017972097 = sum of:
    0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011280581 = score(doc=998,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827

0.0019751405 = product of:
  0.013825983 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=1369,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1369, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1369)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1369)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Data cubes for OLAP (On-Line Analytical Processing) often need to be constructed from data located in several distributed and autonomous information sources. Such a data integration process is challenging due to semantic, syntactic, and structural heterogeneity among the data. While XML (extensible markup language) is the de facto standard for data exchange, the three types of heterogeneity remain. Moreover, popular path-oriented XML query languages, such as XQuery, require the user to know in much detail the structure of the documents to be processed and are, thus, effectively impractical in many real-world data integration tasks. Several Lowest Common Ancestor (LCA)-based XML query evaluation strategies have recently been introduced to provide a more structure-independent way to access XML documents. We shall, however, show that this approach leads in the context of certain - not uncommon - types of XML documents to undesirable results. This article introduces a novel high-level data extraction primitive that utilizes the purpose-built Smallest Possible Context (SPC) query evaluation strategy. We demonstrate, through a system prototype for OLAP data cube construction and a sample application in informetrics, that our approach has real advantages in data integration.

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.3, S.435-449

0.0018531675 = product of:
  0.025944345 = sum of:
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=4485,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article investigates how consistent different newspapers are in their choice of words when writing about the same news events. News articles on the same news events were taken from three Finnish newspapers and compared in regard to their central concepts and words representing the concepts in the news texts. Consistency figures were calculated for each set of three articles (the total number of sets was sixty). Inconsistency in words and concepts was found between news articles from different newspapers. The mean value of consistency calculated on the basis of words was 65 per cent; this however depended on the article length. For short news wires consistency was 83 per cent while for long articles it was only 47 per cent. At the concept level, consistency was considerably higher, ranging from 92 per cent to 97 per cent between short and long articles. The articles also represented three categories of topic (event, process and opinion). Statistically significant differences in consistency were found in regard to length but not in regard to the categories of topic. We argue that the expression inconsistency is a clear sign of a retrieval problem and that query expansion based on semantic relationships can significantly improve retrieval performance on free-text sources.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0014268934 = product of:
  0.019976506 = sum of:
    0.019976506 = weight(_text_:information in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019976506 = score(doc=4649,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.129-144

0.0010699268 = product of:
  0.014978974 = sum of:
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - To show that stem generation compares well with lemmatization as a morphological tool for a highly inflectional language for IR purposes in a best-match retrieval system. Design/methodology/approach - Effects of three different morphological methods - lemmatization, stemming and stem production - for Finnish are compared in a probabilistic IR environment (INQUERY). Evaluation is done using a four-point relevance scale which is partitioned differently in different test settings. Findings - Results show that stem production, a lighter method than morphological lemmatization, compares well with lemmatization in a best-match IR environment. Differences in performance between stem production and lemmatization are small and they are not statistically significant in most of the tested settings. It is also shown that hitherto a rather neglected method of morphological processing for Finnish, stemming, performs reasonably well although the stemmer used - a Porter stemmer implementation - is far from optimal for a morphologically complex language like Finnish. In another series of tests, the effects of compound splitting and derivational expansion of queries are tested. Practical implications - Usefulness of morphological lemmatization and stem generation for IR purposes can be estimated with many factors. On the average P-R level they seem to behave very close to each other in a probabilistic IR system. Thus, the choice of the used method with highly inflectional languages needs to be estimated along other dimensions too. Originality/value - Results are achieved using Finnish as an example of a highly inflectional language. The results are of interest for anyone who is interested in processing of morphological variation of a highly inflected language for IR purposes.

0.0010699268 = product of:
  0.014978974 = sum of:
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=4545,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4545, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4545)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article presents a novel user-oriented interface for generalised informetric analysis and demonstrates how informetric calculations can easily and declaratively be specified through advanced data modelling techniques. The interface is declarative and at a high level. Therefore it is easy to use, flexible and extensible. It enables end users to perform basic informetric ad hoc calculations easily and often with much less effort than in contemporary online retrieval systems. It also provides several fruitful generalisations of typical informetric measurements like impact factors. These are based on substituting traditional foci of analysis, for instance journals, by other object types, such as authors, organisations or countries. In the interface, bibliographic data are modelled as complex objects (non-first normal form relations) and terminological and citation networks involving transitive relationships are modelled as binary relations for deductive processing. The interface is flexible, because it makes it easy to switch focus between various object types for informetric calculations, e.g. from authors to institutions. Moreover, it is demonstrated that all informetric data can easily be broken down by criteria that foster advanced analysis, e.g. by years or content-bearing attributes. Such modelling allows flexible data aggregation along many dimensions. These salient features emerge from the query interface's general data restructuring and aggregation capabilities combined with transitive processing capabilities. The features are illustrated by means of sample queries and results in the article.

0.001008966 = product of:
  0.014125523 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.6, S.869-

8.0575584E-4 = product of:
  0.011280581 = sum of:
    0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 4965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011280581 = score(doc=4965,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 4965, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4965)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

We analyze barriers to task-based information access in molecular medicine, focusing on research tasks, which provide task performance sessions of varying complexity. Molecular medicine is a relevant domain because it offers thousands of digital resources as the information environment. Data were collected through shadowing of real work tasks. Thirty work task sessions were analyzed and barriers in these identified. The barriers were classified by their character (conceptual, syntactic, and technological) and by their context of appearance (work task, system integration, or system). Also, work task sessions were grouped into three complexity classes and the frequency of barriers of varying types across task complexity levels were analyzed. Our findings indicate that although most of the barriers are on system level, there is a quantum of barriers in integration and work task contexts. These barriers might be overcome through attention to the integrated use of multiple systems at least for the most frequent uses. This can be done by means of standardization and harmonization of the data and by taking the requirements of the work tasks into account in system design and development, because information access is seldom an end itself, but rather serves to reach the goals of work tasks.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.86-97

6.241359E-4 = product of:
  0.008737902 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 2771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=2771,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2771, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2771)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

We present a novel measure for ranking evaluation, called Twist (t). It is a measure for informational intents, which handles both binary and graded relevance. t stems from the observation that searching is currently a that searching is currently taken for granted and it is natural for users to assume that search engines are available and work well. As a consequence, users may assume the utility they have in finding relevant documents, which is the focus of traditional measures, as granted. On the contrary, they may feel uneasy when the system returns nonrelevant documents because they are then forced to do additional work to get the desired information, and this causes avoidable effort. The latter is the focus of t, which evaluates the effectiveness of a system from the point of view of the effort required to the users to retrieve the desired information. We provide a formal definition of t, a demonstration of its properties, and introduce the notion of effort/gain plots, which complement traditional utility-based measures. By means of an extensive experimental evaluation, t is shown to grasp different aspects of system performances, to not require extensive and costly assessments, and to be a robust tool for detecting differences between systems.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.620-648

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1424-1439

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 2332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=2332,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2332, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2332)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.14, S.2350-2352

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=2694,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Erratum in: Järvelin, K., O. Persson: The DCI-index: discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation. Erratum re. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.14, S.2350-2352.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1433-1440

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.10, S.939-951