Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012499675 = product of:
  0.02499935 = sum of:
    0.02499935 = product of:
      0.0499987 = sum of:
        0.0499987 = weight(_text_:h in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0499987 = score(doc=470,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.4391927 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Password. 2002, H.3, S.4-5

0.0077337795 = product of:
  0.015467559 = sum of:
    0.015467559 = product of:
      0.030935118 = sum of:
        0.030935118 = weight(_text_:h in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030935118 = score(doc=5233,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 51(2000) H.6, S.325-334

0.004687378 = product of:
  0.009374756 = sum of:
    0.009374756 = product of:
      0.018749513 = sum of:
        0.018749513 = weight(_text_:h in 3381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018749513 = score(doc=3381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 3381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Password. 2005, H.3, S.24-25,41

0.002734304 = product of:
  0.005468608 = sum of:
    0.005468608 = product of:
      0.010937216 = sum of:
        0.010937216 = weight(_text_:h in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010937216 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.096073404 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scholarly digital repositories continue to be one of the most dynamic and varying components of the emerging digital research library. Little consensus is evident on matters such as depositing content in disciplinary or institutional repositories, or both. Debates about deposit mandates and access to research have spilled into the political arena and have focused much attention on various aspects of digital repositories, including the economics and patterns of scholarly publishing, systems and technology, governmental and organizational policies, access, accountability, research impact, and the motivations of individual researchers. Scholarly digital repositories are a rich area for both empirical research and philosophical debate, and are the central theme of a growing body of published literature. It is surprising, therefore, that so much is still unknown about the basic nature of digital repositories, including both differences and similarities. As the two Repositories by the Numbers articles in this issue show, digital scholarly repositories are diversifying both in their general nature and in the information they contain. Because there is still much to be discovered or understood at the most basic levels of digital repositories, co-authors Chuck Thomas and Robert H. McDonald and author Cat McDowell offer readers two different but complementary statistical studies of various types of institutional and disciplinary repositories. Re-iterating a theme of many of the recent works presented at the 2nd International Conference on Institutional Repositories, Thomas and McDonald apply statistical techniques to explore patterns of scholarly participation by more than 30,000 authors in several categories of repositories. McDowell reports on her ongoing analysis of the growth and development of institutional repositories in American universities and colleges. Together, these articles reveal new aspects of the digital repository landscape, and present data that will be of immense interest to repository planners and sponsors.