Search (46 results, page 2 of 3)

0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 5537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=5537,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 5537, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5537)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses differing perspectives relevant to library and information studies (LIS) regarding the philosophy of information, primarily disparate accounts of ontology. The perspectives include, but are not limited to, those of Luciano Floridi, Raphael Capurro, Michael Eldred, applied ontologists like Pierre Grenon and Barry Smith, Fred Fonseca, and Bernd Frohmann. Slavoj Zizek's parallax ontology is used as a leitmotif and theoretical frame to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of differing standpoints on ontological issues within LIS and the philosophy of information. Parallax ontology is presented not as a replacement for any particular perspective but rather as a means to utilize the differing points of view. The antinomies within and between these perspectives are not overcome through some kind of synthesis but instead disclose the fundamentally irreconcilable nature of the topic of ontology itself, particularly within LIS and the philosophy of information. The paper concludes with an assessment of the importance of this type of research, and the topics of ontology and the philosophy of information in particular.

Source

Library trends. 63(2015) no.3, S.555-573

0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=5546,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In response to the perceived (by some) onset of an information society, historians have begun to study its roots and antecedents. The past is replete with the rise, fall, and transformation of systems of information, which are not to be confused with the narrower computer-mediated world of information systems. The history of systems of information-which for digestibility can be labeled information history-lacks neither scale nor scope. Systems of information have played a critical role in the transition to, and subsequent development of, capitalism; the growth of the state, especially the modern, nation-state; the rise of modernity, science, and the public sphere; imperialism; and geopolitics. In the context of these epochal shifts and episodes in human thinking and social organization, this essay presents a critical bibliographic survey of histories-outside the well-trodden paths of library and information-science history-that have foregrounded, or made reference to, a wide variety of systems of information.

Source

Library trends. 62(2014) no.3, S.628-662

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 1147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=1147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1147)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article discusses the historiography of information. It argues that information history is represented by (at least) six well-defined subdisciplines (archival history, book and publishing history, communication history, computing history, information science history, and library history), each in agreement about its own methods and core literature, but which it shares with none of the other five. The article identifies books that could be read in graduate-level courses on information history that are taught either chronologically or thematically. It also identifies historical questions that cut across the six subdisciplines.

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 5531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=5531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 5531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5531)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 63(2015) no.3, S.448-463

0.007178542 = product of:
  0.028714169 = sum of:
    0.028714169 = weight(_text_:library in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028714169 = score(doc=5523,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21788102 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

What follows is an editorial that makes a case against the development of an empirical research frontier in library and information science (LIS) devoted to information and the body. My goal is to offer a sober and constructive counterbalance to this Library Trends special issue that is otherwise uncritical of its proposition. In asserting that original research into embodied information may be unproductive for our field, I draw from my personal experience and reflections as well as foundational conceptions of LIS from past and contemporary luminaries. My conclusion reminds all stakeholders in this Library Trends special issue of the many fascinating and urgent research questions that remain unanswered within the conventional boundaries of LIS.
Another notable aspect of the story above is that certain phenomena-namely, the relationship between human beings and recorded knowledge-are deemed not compelling or research-worthy by other social sciences and are eschewed. The precocious protosociologist in my story sounded almost allergic to paper. Indeed, LIS stands as the resident expert and overseer of the universe of recorded knowledge, and there are no significant contenders, a chance blessing that should be leveraged and celebrated by LIS. On the library side, this authority dates to 2000 BC and the clay tablets in the palace at Nineveh. The information science side has roots in the European documentation movement of a century ago. Later luminaries have continued to position LIS as the singular mediator between people and the documentary realm. Jesse Shera proclaimed that the library brought humankind and the graphic record into harmonious relations. Howard White positioned LIS at the intersection of people and literatures. Marcia Bates cast LIS as a metadiscipline charged with the transmission of and access to recorded knowledge. Why turn our attention away from a nexus that is historically and rightly ours...

Footnote

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0018. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.

Source

Library trends. 66(2018) no.4, S.585-588

0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 300, 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=300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 5886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=5886,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 5886, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5886)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article undertakes a literature review to examine learning analytics through the lens of attention engineering. Informed by a critical literature synthesis from the fields of cognitive science, history, philosophy, education, technology, ethics, and library science, this analysis situates learning analytics in the context of communication and education technologies as tools in the manipulation of attention. The article begins by defining attention as both a cognitive activity and a metaphysical state intrinsic to intellectual freedom. The Progressive Era concept of attention engineering is then introduced and reinterpreted in the context of attention scarcity and academic capitalism in the Knowledge Era. The affordances of information and communications technology replicated in educational technology to facilitate data capture, analysis, and intervention in the form of "nudge" learning analytics are outlined as evidence of contemporary attention engineering in education. Attention engineering in education is critiqued as antithetical to students' intellectual freedom and development as self-sufficient learners and independent thinkers. The academic library's role in teaching and promoting attentional literacy and attentional autonomy is explored as a response to the intellectual freedom challenges posed by learning analytics as a form of attention engineering.

Source

Library trends. 68(2019) no.1, S.24-53

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article addresses the question "what is information?" by comparing the meaning of the term "information" and epistemological assumptions of three theories in library and information science: the "Shannon-Weaver model," Brookes' interpretation of Popper's World 3, and the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom model. It shows that the term "information" in these theories refers to empirical entities or events and is conceptualized as having causal powers upon human minds. It is argued that the epistemological assumptions have led to the negligence of the cultural and social aspects of the constitution of information (i.e., how something is considered to be and not to be information) and the unquestioned nature of science in research methodologies.

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=5539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5539)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 63(2015) no.3, S.528-539

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=5541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 63(2015) no.3, S.591-614

0.0066312538 = product of:
  0.026525015 = sum of:
    0.026525015 = weight(_text_:library in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026525015 = score(doc=5525,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20126988 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5525)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0002. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.

Source

Library trends. 66(2018) no.3, S.239-266

0.0061664553 = product of:
  0.024665821 = sum of:
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 3163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=3163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 3163, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose Arts-informed, visual research was conducted to document the pictorial metaphors that appear among original drawings of information. The purpose of this paper is to report the diversity of these pictorial metaphors, delineate their formal qualities as drawings, and provide a fresh perspective on the concept of information. Design/methodology/approach The project utilized pre-existing iSquare drawings of information that were produced by iSchool graduate students during a draw-and-write activity. From a data set of 417 images, 125 of the strongest pictorial metaphors were identified and subjected to cognitive metaphor theory. Findings Overwhelmingly, the favored source domain for envisioning information was nature. The most common pictorial metaphors were: Earth, web, tree, light bulb, box, cloud, and fishing/mining, and each brings different qualities of information into focus. The drawings were often canonical versions of objects in the world, leading to arrays of pictorial metaphors marked by their similarity. Research limitations/implications Less than 30 percent of the data set qualified as pictorial metaphors, making them a minority strategy for representing information as an image. The process to identify and interpret pictorial metaphors was highly subjective. The arts-informed methodology generated tensions between artistic and social scientific paradigms. Practical implications The pictorial metaphors for information can enhance information science education and fortify professional identity among information professionals. Originality/value This is the first arts-informed, visual study of information that utilizes cognitive metaphor theory to explore the nature of information. It strengthens a sense of history, humanity, nature, and beauty in our understanding of information today, and contributes to metaphor research at large.

0.0059419204 = product of:
  0.023767682 = sum of:
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 5530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=5530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 5530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5530)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 63(2015) no.3, S.427-447

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 5536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=5536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 5536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5536)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 63(2015) no.3, S.540-554

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 5542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=5542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 5542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5542)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 63(2015) no.3, S.315-3168

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 5544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=5544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 5544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5544)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 63(2015) no.3, S.512-527

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 73, 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=73)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27.12.2020 16:56:22

0.0049331645 = product of:
  0.019732658 = sum of:
    0.019732658 = product of:
      0.039465316 = sum of:
        0.039465316 = weight(_text_:project in 3407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039465316 = score(doc=3407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 3407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Introduction: Philosophy's Relevance in Computing and Information Science - Ruth Hagengruber and Uwe V.Riss Part I: Philosophy of Computing and Information 1 The Fourth Revolution in our Self-Understanding - Luciano Floridi -- 2 Information Transfer as a Metaphor - Jakob Krebs -- 3 With Aristotle towards a Differentiated Concept of Information? - Uwe Voigt -- 4 The Influence of Philosophy on the Understanding of Computing and Information - Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski -- Part II: Complexity and System Theory 5 The Emergence of Self-Conscious Systems: From Symbolic AI to Embodied Robotics - Klaus Mainzer -- 6 Artificial Intelligence as a New Metaphysical Project - Aziz F. Zambak Part III: Ontology 7 The Relevance of Philosophical Ontology to Information and Computer Science - Barry Smith -- 8 Ontology, its Origins and its Meaning in Information Science - Jens Kohne -- 9 Smart Questions: Steps towards an Ontology of Questions and Answers - Ludwig Jaskolla and Matthias Rugel Part IV: Knowledge Representation 10 Sophisticated Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Requires Philosophy - Selmer Bringsjord, Micah Clark and Joshua Taylor -- 11 On Frames and Theory-Elements of Structuralism Holger Andreas -- 12 Ontological Complexity and Human Culture David J. Saab and Frederico Fonseca Part V: Action Theory 13 Knowledge and Action between Abstraction and Concretion - Uwe V.Riss -- 14 Action-Directing Construction of Reality in Product Creation Using Social Software: Employing Philosophy to Solve Real-World Problems - Kai Holzweifiig and Jens Krüger -- 15 An Action-Theory-Based Treatment ofTemporal Individuals - Tillmann Pross -- 16 Four Rules for Classifying Social Entities - Ludger Jansen Part VI: Info-Computationalism 17 Info-Computationalism and Philosophical Aspects of Research in Information Sciences - Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic -- 18 Pancomputationalism: Theory or Metaphor ? - Vincent C. Mutter Part VII: Ethics 19 The Importance of the Sources of Professional Obligations - Francis C. Dane

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 5526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=5526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 5526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5526)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 66(2018) no.3, S.223-238