Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.03954287 = product of:
  0.07908574 = sum of:
    0.07908574 = sum of:
      0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0440175 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.03506824 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03506824 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.018675046 = product of:
  0.037350092 = sum of:
    0.037350092 = product of:
      0.074700184 = sum of:
        0.074700184 = weight(_text_:language in 3463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074700184 = score(doc=3463,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 3463, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The nature of the contents of academic Web sites is of direct relevance to the new field of scientific Web intelligence, and for search engine and topic-specific crawler designers. We analyze word frequencies in national academic Webs using the Web sites of three Englishspeaking nations: Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Strong regularities were found in page size and word frequency distributions, but with significant anomalies. At least 26% of pages contain no words. High frequency words include university names and acronyms, Internet terminology, and computing product names: not always words in common usage away from the Web. A minority of low frequency words are spelling mistakes, with other common types including nonwords, proper names, foreign language terms or computer science variable names. Based upon these findings, recommendations for data cleansing and filtering are made, particularly for clustering applications.

0.018675046 = product of:
  0.037350092 = sum of:
    0.037350092 = product of:
      0.074700184 = sum of:
        0.074700184 = weight(_text_:language in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074700184 = score(doc=5896,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Word usage is of interest to linguists for its own sake as well as to social scientists and others who seek to track the spread of ideas, for example, in public debates over political decisions. The historical evolution of language can be analyzed with the tools of corpus linguistics through evolving corpora and the Web. But word usage statistics can only be gathered for known words. In this article, techniques are described and tested for identifying new words from the Web, focusing on the case when the words are related to a topic and have a hybrid form with a common sequence of letters. The results highlight the need to employ a combination of search techniques and show the wide potential of hybrid word family investigations in linguistics and social science.

0.015406125 = product of:
  0.03081225 = sum of:
    0.03081225 = product of:
      0.0616245 = sum of:
        0.0616245 = weight(_text_:language in 1014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0616245 = score(doc=1014,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 1014, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1014)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hyperlink patterns between Canadian university Web sites were analyzed by a mathematical modeling approach. A multiple regression model was developed which shows that faculty quality and the language of the university are important predictors for links to a university Web site. Higher faculty quality means more links. French universities received lower numbers of links to their Web sites than comparable English universities. Analysis of interlinking between pairs of universities also showed that English universities are advantaged. Universities are more likely to link to each other when the geographical distance between them is less than 3000 km, possibly reflecting the east vs. west divide that exists in Canadian society.

0.014027297 = product of:
  0.028054593 = sum of:
    0.028054593 = product of:
      0.056109186 = sum of:
        0.056109186 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056109186 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.01320525 = product of:
  0.0264105 = sum of:
    0.0264105 = product of:
      0.052821 = sum of:
        0.052821 = weight(_text_:language in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052821 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.26008 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Commercial search engines are now playing an increasingly important role in Web information dissemination and access. Of particular interest to business and national governments is whether the big engines have coverage biased towards the US or other countries. In our study we tested for national biases in three major search engines and found significant differences in their coverage of commercial Web sites. The US sites were much better covered than the others in the study: sites from China, Taiwan and Singapore. We then examined the possible technical causes of the differences and found that the language of a site does not affect its coverage by search engines. However, the visibility of a site, measured by the number of links to it, affects its chance to be covered by search engines. We conclude that the coverage bias does exist but this is due not to deliberate choices of the search engines but occurs as a natural result of cumulative advantage effects of US sites on the Web. Nevertheless, the bias remains a cause for international concern.

0.01320525 = product of:
  0.0264105 = sum of:
    0.0264105 = product of:
      0.052821 = sum of:
        0.052821 = weight(_text_:language in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052821 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.26008 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article Web issue analysis is introduced as a new technique to investigate an issue as reflected on the Web. The issue chosen, integrated water resource management (IWRM), is a United Nations-initiated paradigm for managing water resources in an international context, particularly in developing nations. As with many international governmental initiatives, there is a considerable body of online information about it: 41.381 hypertext markup language (HTML) pages and 28.735 PDF documents mentioning the issue were downloaded. A page uniform resource locator (URL) and link analysis revealed the international and sectoral spread of IWRM. A noun and noun phrase occurrence analysis was used to identify the issues most commonly discussed, revealing some unexpected topics such as private sector and economic growth. Although the complexity of the methods required to produce meaningful statistics from the data is disadvantageous to easy interpretation, it was still possible to produce data that could be subject to a reasonably intuitive interpretation. Hence Web issue analysis is claimed to be a useful new technique for information science.

0.012398495 = product of:
  0.02479699 = sum of:
    0.02479699 = product of:
      0.04959398 = sum of:
        0.04959398 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04959398 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.011004375 = product of:
  0.02200875 = sum of:
    0.02200875 = product of:
      0.0440175 = sum of:
        0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0440175 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The worldwide span of the microblogging service Twitter provides an opportunity to make international comparisons of trending topics of interest, such as news stories. Previous international comparisons of news interests have tended to use surveys and may bypass topics not well covered in the mainstream media. This study uses 9 months of English-language Tweets from the United Kingdom, United States, India, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Based upon the top 50 trending keywords in each country from the 0.5 billion Tweets collected, festivals or religious events are the most common, followed by media events, politics, human interest, and sports. U.S. trending topics have the most interest in the other countries and Indian trending topics the least. Conversely, India is the most interested in other countries' trending topics and the United States the least. This gives evidence of an international hierarchy of perceived importance or relevance with some issues, such as the international interest in U.S. Thanksgiving celebrations, apparently not being directly driven by the media. This hierarchy echoes, and may be caused by, similar news coverage trends. Although the current imbalanced international news coverage does not seem to be out of step with public news interests, the political implication is that the Twitter-using public reflects, and hence seems to implicitly accept, international imbalances in news media agenda setting rather than combating them. This is an issue for those believing that these imbalances make the media too powerful.

0.011004375 = product of:
  0.02200875 = sum of:
    0.02200875 = product of:
      0.0440175 = sum of:
        0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0440175 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.

0.011004375 = product of:
  0.02200875 = sum of:
    0.02200875 = product of:
      0.0440175 = sum of:
        0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0440175 = score(doc=5461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 5461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Despite the social, educational and therapeutic benefits of book clubs, little is known about which books participants are likely to have read. In response, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the public bookshelves of those that have joined a group within the Goodreads social network site. Design/methodology/approach Books listed as read by members of 50 large English-language Goodreads groups - with a genre focus or other theme - were compiled by author and title. Findings Recent and youth-oriented fiction dominate the 50 books most read by book club members, whilst almost half are works of literature frequently taught at the secondary and postsecondary level (literary classics). Whilst J.K. Rowling is almost ubiquitous (at least 63 per cent as frequently listed as other authors in any group, including groups for other genres), most authors, including Shakespeare (15 per cent), Goulding (6 per cent) and Hemmingway (9 per cent), are little read by some groups. Nor are individual recent literary prize winners or works in languages other than English frequently read. Research limitations/implications Although these results are derived from a single popular website, knowing more about what book club members are likely to have read should help participants, organisers and moderators. For example, recent literary prize winners might be a good choice, given that few members may have read them. Originality/value This is the first large scale study of book group members' reading patterns. Whilst typical reading is likely to vary by group theme and average age, there seems to be a mainly female canon of about 14 authors and 19 books that Goodreads book club members are likely to have read.

0.011004375 = product of:
  0.02200875 = sum of:
    0.02200875 = product of:
      0.0440175 = sum of:
        0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0440175 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Finding new ways to help researchers and administrators understand academic fields is an important task for information scientists. Given the importance of interdisciplinary research, it is essential to be aware of disciplinary differences in aspects of scholarship, such as the significance of recent changes in a field. This paper identifies potential changes in 25 subject categories through a term comparison of words in article titles, keywords and abstracts in 1 year compared to the previous 4 years. The scholarly influence of new research issues is indirectly assessed with a citation analysis of articles matching each trending term. While topic-related words dominate the top terms, style, national focus, and language changes are also evident. Thus, as reflected in Scopus, fields evolve along multiple dimensions. Moreover, while articles exploiting new issues are usually more cited in some fields, such as Organic Chemistry, they are usually less cited in others, including History. The possible causes of new issues being less cited include externally driven temporary factors, such as disease outbreaks, and internally driven temporary decisions, such as a deliberate emphasis on a single topic (e.g., through a journal special issue).

0.010520472 = product of:
  0.021040944 = sum of:
    0.021040944 = product of:
      0.04208189 = sum of:
        0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04208189 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.010520472 = product of:
  0.021040944 = sum of:
    0.021040944 = product of:
      0.04208189 = sum of:
        0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04208189 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.010520472 = product of:
  0.021040944 = sum of:
    0.021040944 = product of:
      0.04208189 = sum of:
        0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04208189 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.010520472 = product of:
  0.021040944 = sum of:
    0.021040944 = product of:
      0.04208189 = sum of:
        0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04208189 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.00876706 = product of:
  0.01753412 = sum of:
    0.01753412 = product of:
      0.03506824 = sum of:
        0.03506824 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03506824 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.00876706 = product of:
  0.01753412 = sum of:
    0.01753412 = product of:
      0.03506824 = sum of:
        0.03506824 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03506824 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

0.00876706 = product of:
  0.01753412 = sum of:
    0.01753412 = product of:
      0.03506824 = sum of:
        0.03506824 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03506824 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.00876706 = product of:
  0.01753412 = sum of:
    0.01753412 = product of:
      0.03506824 = sum of:
        0.03506824 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03506824 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22