Search (53 results, page 3 of 3)

  • × language_ss:"d"
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Frisch, E.; Kluck, M.: Pretest zum Projekt German Indexing and Retrieval Testdatabase (GIRT) unter Anwendung der Retrievalsysteme Messenger und freeWAISsf (1997) 0.01
    0.006866161 = product of:
      0.054929286 = sum of:
        0.019074813 = weight(_text_:und in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019074813 = score(doc=624,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
        0.016779663 = weight(_text_:der in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016779663 = score(doc=624,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.34197432 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
        0.019074813 = weight(_text_:und in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019074813 = score(doc=624,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
      0.125 = coord(3/24)
    
    Abstract
    GIRT soll den Rahmen für einen aussagekräftigen Vergleich moderner, intelligenter Indexierungs- und Retrievalsysteme schaffen, auf dessen Basis die Leistungsfähigkeit dieser Systeme gegenüber herkömmlichen Standardsystemen beurteilt werden kann. Es geht darum, die existierenden bzw. in der Entwicklung befindlichen modernen Indexierungs- und Retrievalsysteme auf ihre Leistungsfähigkeit und Einsatzfähigkeit für den Bereich der Fachinformation hin zu überprüfen
  2. Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984) 0.01
    0.0067766993 = product of:
      0.054213595 = sum of:
        0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016690461 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
        0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016690461 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
        0.020832673 = product of:
          0.041665345 = sum of:
            0.041665345 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041665345 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021966046 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.125 = coord(3/24)
    
    Date
    20.10.2000 12:22:23
    Source
    Deutscher Dokumentartag 1983, Göttingen, 3.-7.10.1983: Fachinformation und Bildschirmtext. Bearb.: H. Strohl-Goebel
  3. Hierl, S.: Bezugsrahmen für die Evaluation von Information Retrieval Systemen mit Visualisierungskomponenten (2007) 0.01
    0.0060797883 = product of:
      0.048638307 = sum of:
        0.013487929 = weight(_text_:und in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013487929 = score(doc=3040,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
        0.02166245 = weight(_text_:der in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02166245 = score(doc=3040,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.44148692 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
        0.013487929 = weight(_text_:und in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013487929 = score(doc=3040,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
      0.125 = coord(3/24)
    
    Abstract
    Folgender Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Konzeption und Durchführung von nachhaltigen Evaluationen von Information Retrieval Systemen mit Visualisierungskomponenten. Bisherige Evaluationsansätze differieren sowohl in der Methodenauswahl als auch Untersuchungsanlage, wie eine State-of-the-Art-Analyse aufzeigt. Im Anschluss werden die größten Herausforderungen, die sich bei Evaluationen dieser Art ergeben mit Vorschlägen zu potenziellen Lösungsansätzen diskutiert. Auf der Grundlage eines morphologischen Rahmens wird ein Bezugsrahmen für die Evaluation von Information Retrieval Systemen mit Visualisierungskomponenten vorgeschlagen, das einen integrierten Ansatz zur Kombination geeigneter Methoden aus dem Bereich der Usability-Evaluation und der Retrievaleffektivitäts-Evaluation verfolgt.
  4. Krause, J.; Mutschke, P.: Indexierung und Fulcrum-Evaluierung (1999) 0.01
    0.0060028015 = product of:
      0.04802241 = sum of:
        0.014641492 = product of:
          0.043924473 = sum of:
            0.043924473 = weight(_text_:p in 6256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043924473 = score(doc=6256,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021966046 = queryNorm
                0.55615246 = fieldWeight in 6256, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6256)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 6256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016690461 = score(doc=6256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 6256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6256)
        0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 6256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016690461 = score(doc=6256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 6256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6256)
      0.125 = coord(3/24)
    
  5. Grummann, M.: Sind Verfahren zur maschinellen Indexierung für Literaturbestände Öffentlicher Bibliotheken geeignet? : Retrievaltests von indexierten ekz-Daten mit der Software IDX (2000) 0.01
    0.005842385 = product of:
      0.04673908 = sum of:
        0.016519273 = weight(_text_:und in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016519273 = score(doc=1879,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
        0.013700536 = weight(_text_:der in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013700536 = score(doc=1879,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
        0.016519273 = weight(_text_:und in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016519273 = score(doc=1879,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
      0.125 = coord(3/24)
    
    Abstract
    Maschinelles Indexieren vereinheitlicht und vermehrt das Suchvokabular eines Bibliothekskatalogs durch verschiedene Methoden (u.a. Ermittlung der Grundform, Kompositazerlegung, Wortableitungen). Ein Retrievaltest mit einem für öffentliche Bibliotheken typischen Sachbuchbestand zeigt, dass dieses Verfahren die Ergebnisse von OPAC-Recherchen verbessert - trotz 'blumiger' Titelformulierungen. Im Vergleich zu herkömmlichen Erschließungsmethoden (Stich- und Schlagwörter) werden mehr relevante Titel gefunden, ohne gleichzeitig den 'Ballast' zu erhöhen. Das maschinelle Indexieren kann die Verschlagwortung jedoch nicht ersetzen, sondern nur ergänzen
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 24(2000) H.3, S.297-318
  6. Heinz, M.; Voigt, H.: Aufbau einer Suchmaschine für ein Forschungsinstitut : Aufgabe für die Bibliothek? (2000) 0.01
    0.00546944 = product of:
      0.04375552 = sum of:
        0.013487929 = weight(_text_:und in 5234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013487929 = score(doc=5234,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 5234, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5234)
        0.016779663 = weight(_text_:der in 5234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016779663 = score(doc=5234,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.34197432 = fieldWeight in 5234, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5234)
        0.013487929 = weight(_text_:und in 5234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013487929 = score(doc=5234,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 5234, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5234)
      0.125 = coord(3/24)
    
    Abstract
    Anhand eines einfachen Modells wird geprüft, ob der Nutzen den Aufbau einer Spezialsuchmaschine trägt. Zum Vergleich werden fünf große Suchmaschinen herangezogen und deren Ergebnisse bei gleichen Fragestellungen analysiert. Es ergeben sich gravierende Abweichungen sowohl in der Überdeckung der Ergebnismengen als auch im Ranking. Es erscheint also sinnvoll, eine eigene Suchmaschine zu betreiben
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 51(2000) H.6, S.335-341
  7. Petras, V.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Evaluation im Information Retrieval (2023) 0.01
    0.0051496206 = product of:
      0.041196965 = sum of:
        0.0143061085 = weight(_text_:und in 808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0143061085 = score(doc=808,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 808, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=808)
        0.012584748 = weight(_text_:der in 808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012584748 = score(doc=808,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.25648075 = fieldWeight in 808, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=808)
        0.0143061085 = weight(_text_:und in 808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0143061085 = score(doc=808,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 808, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=808)
      0.125 = coord(3/24)
    
    Abstract
    Das Ziel einer Evaluation ist die Überprüfung, ob bzw. in welchem Ausmaß ein Informationssystem die an das System gestellten Anforderungen erfüllt. Informationssysteme können aus verschiedenen Perspektiven evaluiert werden. Für eine ganzheitliche Evaluation (als Synonym wird auch Evaluierung benutzt), die unterschiedliche Qualitätsaspekte betrachtet (z. B. wie gut ein System relevante Dokumente rankt, wie schnell ein System die Suche durchführt, wie die Ergebnispräsentation gestaltet ist oder wie Suchende durch das System geführt werden) und die Erfüllung mehrerer Anforderungen überprüft, empfiehlt es sich, sowohl eine perspektivische als auch methodische Triangulation (d. h. der Einsatz von mehreren Ansätzen zur Qualitätsüberprüfung) vorzunehmen. Im Information Retrieval (IR) konzentriert sich die Evaluation auf die Qualitätseinschätzung der Suchfunktion eines Information-Retrieval-Systems (IRS), wobei oft zwischen systemzentrierter und nutzerzentrierter Evaluation unterschieden wird. Dieses Kapitel setzt den Fokus auf die systemzentrierte Evaluation, während andere Kapitel dieses Handbuchs andere Evaluationsansätze diskutieren (s. Kapitel C 4 Interaktives Information Retrieval, C 7 Cross-Language Information Retrieval und D 1 Information Behavior).
    Source
    Grundlagen der Informationswissenschaft. Hrsg.: Rainer Kuhlen, Dirk Lewandowski, Wolfgang Semar und Christa Womser-Hacker. 7., völlig neu gefasste Ausg
  8. Hofmann, M.: TREC Konferenzbericht (7.10.93) (1995) 0.00
    0.0040969187 = product of:
      0.03277535 = sum of:
        0.009537406 = weight(_text_:und in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009537406 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
        0.013700536 = weight(_text_:der in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013700536 = score(doc=5005,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
        0.009537406 = weight(_text_:und in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009537406 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
      0.125 = coord(3/24)
    
    Abstract
    Ziel der US-amerikanischen TREC (Texte REtrieval Conference) Initiative ist es, zum einen Standard-Kollektionen von Teten zu erstellen, auf deren Basis verschiedene Retrieval-Ansätze verglichen werden können. Zum anderen sollen Kollektionen einer Grösse aufgebaut werden, die realistischen Anwendungen nahe kommen. Damit soll das alte Vorurteil der Untauglichkeit neuerer IR-Methoden (bzgl. Effizienz und Effektivität) für größere Darenbasen widerlegt werden.
  9. Grunder, R.: Qualitätskriterien für Datenbanken : Grundsätzliche Überlegungen und Untersuchung ausgewählter Aspekte am Beispiel bibliographischer Online-Datenbanken (1995) 0.00
    0.0027817436 = product of:
      0.033380922 = sum of:
        0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 7107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016690461 = score(doc=7107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 7107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7107)
        0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 7107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016690461 = score(doc=7107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 7107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7107)
      0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
    
  10. Kluck, M.: ¬Eine deutschsprachige Testdatenbank für moderne Erschließungs- und Retrievalsysteme : German Indexing and Retrieval Testdatabase - GIRT (1996) 0.00
    0.0023843516 = product of:
      0.028612217 = sum of:
        0.0143061085 = weight(_text_:und in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0143061085 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
        0.0143061085 = weight(_text_:und in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0143061085 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
    
  11. Schoger, A.; Frommer, J.: Heterogen - was nun? : Evaluierung heterogener bibliographischer Metadaten (2000) 0.00
    0.0023843516 = product of:
      0.028612217 = sum of:
        0.0143061085 = weight(_text_:und in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0143061085 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
        0.0143061085 = weight(_text_:und in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0143061085 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
    
    Source
    Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 47(2000) H.1, S.110-128
  12. Lepsky, K.; Siepmann, J.; Zimmermann, A.: Automatische Indexierung für Online-Kataloge : Ergebnisse eines Retrievaltests (1996) 0.00
    0.0013908718 = product of:
      0.016690461 = sum of:
        0.0083452305 = weight(_text_:und in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083452305 = score(doc=3251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 3251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3251)
        0.0083452305 = weight(_text_:und in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083452305 = score(doc=3251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 3251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3251)
      0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
    
    Source
    Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 43(1996) H.1, S.47-56
  13. Ronthaler, M.; Zillmann, H.: Literaturrecherche mit OSIRIS : ein Test der OSIRIS-Retrievalkomponente (1998) 0.00
    8.0731185E-4 = product of:
      0.019375484 = sum of:
        0.019375484 = weight(_text_:der in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019375484 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.3948779 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
      0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
    

Years

Types

  • a 38
  • el 6
  • r 6
  • x 6
  • m 1
  • p 1
  • More… Less…