Search (69 results, page 3 of 4)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus"
  1. Rahmstorf, G.: Information retrieval using conceptual representations of phrases (1994) 0.01 
    0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 7862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=7862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 7862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The information retrieval problem is described starting from an analysis of the concepts 'user's information request' and 'information offerings of texts'. It is shown that natural language phrases are a more adequate medium for expressing information requests and information offerings than character string based query and indexing languages complemented by Boolean oprators. The phrases must be represented as concepts to reach a language invariant level for rule based relevance analysis. The special type of representation called advanced thesaurus is used for the semantic representation of natural language phrases and for relevance processing. The analysis of the retrieval problem leads to a symmetric system structure
  2. Nielsen, M.L.: Future thesauri : what kind of conceptual knowledge do searchers need? (1998) 0.01 
    0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=145,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    For more than thirty years thesauri have been valuable tools in information retrieval. Originally, the basic function of the thesauri was to help the indexer to transform concepts and their relationships, as expressed in the language of documents, into the more regularised indexing language of catalogues and databases. In the nineties another important purpose of the thesauri is to guide the searcher to the best search terms. In spite of the new role, the design of the thesauri has remained more or less stable. This paper explores the demands which are put on the thesauri in relation to searching. Findings are presented in the form of generalisations and moreover illustrated in relation to a real-life situation. Suggestions for improved functionality are presented in the form of a prototype of a thesaurus record. The new role as a conceptual searching tool is also influencing the construction process. Therefore, the paper ends up with a discussion of new methods for thesaurus construction
  3. Milstead, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms (2001) 0.01 
    0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  4. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Planning controlled vocabularies for the UK public sector (2003) 0.01 
    0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In the UK, the aim to make public sector information much more available to the citizen has led to establishment of an "e-Govemment Interoperability Framework" based an a set of core standards. Among the standards is a controlled vocabulary, known as the Govemment Category List (GCL), used to select keywords for the metadata of all electronic resources originating from central or local govemment. The GCL is a small and simple taxonomy, designed to facilitate high-level browsing rather than deep searching. Specialized thesauri for particular subject areas may optionally complement the GCL. To ease the indexing burden, GCL terms will often be selected by direct mapping from the specialized vocabularies.
  5. Kuhr, P.S.: Putting the world back together : mapping multiple vocabularies into a single thesaurus (2003) 0.01 
    0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=3813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 3813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  6. Nielsen, M.L.: ¬A framework for work task based thesaurus design (2001) 0.01 
    0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=4477,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Design and construction of indexing languages require thorough knowledge and understanding of the information environment. This empirical study investigated a mixed set of methods (group interviews, recollection of information needs and word association tests to collect data; content analysis and discourse analysis to analyse data) to evaluate whether these methods collected the data needed for work domain oriented thesaurus design. The findings showed that the study methods together provided the domain knowledge needed to define the role of the thesaurus and design its content and structure. The study was carried out from a person-insituation perspective. The findings reflected the information environment and made it possible to develop a thesaurus according to the characteristics of the work domain. It seemed more difficult to capture the needs of the individual user and adapt the thesaurus to individual characteristics.
  7. Assem, M. van; Malaisé, V.; Miles, A.; Schreiber, G.: ¬A method to convert thesauri to SKOS (2006) 0.01 
    0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.
  8. Kempf, A.O.; Neubert, J.: ¬The role of thesauri in an Open Web : a case study of the STW Thesaurus for economics (2016) 0.01 
    0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=2912,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper illustrates the changing role of thesauri interlinked with overall changes of modern information infrastructure services, referring to "STW Thesaurus for Economics" as a case study. It starts with an overview of the history and development of the STW and describes the far-reaching changes brought about by its publication on the Web, with regard to subject indexing, retrieval and new uses for Linked Open Data. It argues that only the most recent technological developments help thesauri to exploit their full potential which is why they more than ever have a place in current information retrieval and infrastructure.
  9. Eastman, C.M.: Overlaps in postings to thesaurus terms : a preliminary study (1988) 0.01 
    0.007853523 = product of:
  0.023560567 = sum of:
    0.023560567 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 3555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047121134 = score(doc=3555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3555, 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=3555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    25.12.1995 22:52:34
  10. Crouch, C.J.: ¬An approach to the automatic construction of global thesauri (1990) 0.01 
    0.007853523 = product of:
  0.023560567 = sum of:
    0.023560567 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047121134 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4042, 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=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 4.1996 3:39:53
  11. Busch, J.A.: Building and accessing vocabulary resources for networked resource discovery and navigation (1998) 0.01 
    0.007853523 = product of:
  0.023560567 = sum of:
    0.023560567 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047121134 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
  12. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001) 0.01 
    0.007853523 = product of:
  0.023560567 = sum of:
    0.023560567 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047121134 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:45:57
  13. Nielsen, M.L.: Thesaurus construction : key issues and selected readings (2004) 0.01 
    0.007853523 = product of:
  0.023560567 = sum of:
    0.023560567 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047121134 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    18. 5.2006 20:06:22
  14. Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: ¬A bibliometric-based semiautomatic approach to identification of candidate thesaurus terms : parsing and filtering of noun phrases from citation contexts (2005) 0.01 
    0.007853523 = product of:
  0.023560567 = sum of:
    0.023560567 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047121134 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    8. 3.2007 19:55:22
  15. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Evolution towards ISO 25964 : an international standard with guidelines for thesauri and other types of controlled vocabulary (2007) 0.01 
    0.007853523 = product of:
  0.023560567 = sum of:
    0.023560567 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047121134 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    8.12.2007 19:25:22
  16. Rolland-Thomas, P.: Thesaural codes : an appraisal of their use in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (1993) 0.01 
    0.0075834226 = product of:
  0.022750268 = sum of:
    0.022750268 = product of:
      0.045500536 = sum of:
        0.045500536 = weight(_text_:indexing in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045500536 = score(doc=549,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23924173 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.
  17. ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies (2008) 0.01 
    0.006965818 = product of:
  0.020897454 = sum of:
    0.020897454 = product of:
      0.041794907 = sum of:
        0.041794907 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041794907 = score(doc=1169,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.21975756 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
  18. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Thesaurus and beyond : an advanced formula for linguistic engineering and information retrieval (1999) 0.01 
    0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4116, 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=4116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.1, S.10-22
  19. Aitchison, J.; Dextre Clarke, S.G.: ¬The Thesaurus : a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future (2004) 0.01 
    0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:46:13
  20. Bagheri, M.: Development of thesauri in Iran (2006) 0.01 
    0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 54
  • m 7
  • el 5
  • s 4
  • n 2
  • b 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications