Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

0.028192293 = product of:
  0.11276917 = sum of:
    0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 4871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11276917 = score(doc=4871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 4871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4871)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

SOSIG (Social Science Information Gateway) aims to provide a trusted source of selected, high quality Internet information for researchers and practitioners in the social sciences, business and law. This article tracks the the development of the gateway since its inception in 1994, describes the current features and looks at some of the associated research and development areas that are taking place around the service including the automatic classification of Web resources and experiments with multilingual thesauri

0.019734079 = product of:
  0.039468158 = sum of:
    0.028484445 = weight(_text_:social in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028484445 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.15419927 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
    0.010983714 = product of:
      0.021967428 = sum of:
        0.021967428 = weight(_text_:22 in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021967428 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social phenomena happen, and the historians follow. So it goes with Google, the latest star shooting through the universe of trend-setting businesses. This company has even entered our popular lexicon: as many note, "Google" has moved beyond noun to verb, becoming an action which most tech-savvy citizens at the turn of the twenty-first century recognize and in fact do, on a daily basis. It's this wide societal impact that fascinated authors David Vise and Mark Malseed, who came to the book with well-established reputations in investigative reporting. Vise authored the bestselling The Bureau and the Mole, and Malseed contributed significantly to two Bob Woodward books, Bush at War and Plan of Attack. The kind of voluminous research and behind-the-scenes insight in which both writers specialize, and on which their earlier books rested, comes through in The Google Story. The strength of the book comes from its command of many small details, and its focus on the human side of the Google story, as opposed to the merely academic one. Some may prefer a dryer, more analytic approach to Google's impact on the Internet, like The Search or books that tilt more heavily towards bits and bytes on the spectrum between technology and business, like The Singularity is Near. Those wanting to understand the motivations and personal growth of founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and CEO Eric Schmidt, however, will enjoy this book. Vise and Malseed interviewed over 150 people, including numerous Google employees, Wall Street analysts, Stanford professors, venture capitalists, even Larry Page's Cub Scout leader, and their comprehensiveness shows. As the narrative unfolds, readers learn how Google grew out of the intellectually fertile and not particularly directed friendship between Page and Brin; how the founders attempted to peddle early versions of their search technology to different Silicon Valley firms for $1 million; how Larry and Sergey celebrated their first investor's check with breakfast at Burger King; how the pair initially housed their company in a Palo Alto office, then eventually moved to a futuristic campus dubbed the "Googleplex"; how the company found its financial footing through keyword-targeted Web ads; how various products like Google News, Froogle, and others were cooked up by an inventive staff; how Brin and Page proved their mettle as tough businessmen through negotiations with AOL Europe and their controversial IPO process, among other instances; and how the company's vision for itself continues to grow, such as geographic expansion to China and cooperation with Craig Venter on the Human Genome Project. Like the company it profiles, The Google Story is a bit of a wild ride, and fun, too. Its first appendix lists 23 "tips" which readers can use to get more utility out of Google. The second contains the intelligence test which Google Research offers to prospective job applicants, and shows the sometimes zany methods of this most unusual business. Through it all, Vise and Malseed synthesize a variety of fascinating anecdotes and speculation about Google, and readers seeking a first draft of the history of the company will enjoy an easy read.

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=2106,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach to query expansion in search engines through the use of general non-topical terms (NTTs) and domain-specific semi-topical terms (STTs). NTTs and STTs can be used in conjunction with topical terms (TTs) to improve precision in retrieval results. In Phase I, 20 topical queries in two domains (Health and the Social Sciences) were carried out in Google and from the results of the queries, 800 pages were textually analysed. Of 1442 NTTs and STTs identified, 15% were shared between the two domains; 62% were NTTs and 38% were STTs; and approximately 64% occurred before while 36% occurred after their respective topical terms (TTs). Findings of Phase II showed that query expansion through NTTs (or STTs) particularly in the 'exact title' and URL search options resulted in more precise and manageable results. Statistically significant differences were found between Health and the Social Sciences vis-à-vis keyword and 'exact phrase' search results; however there were no significant differences in exact title and URL search results. The ratio of exact phrase, exact title, and URL search result frequencies to keyword search result frequencies also showed statistically significant differences between the two domains. Our findings suggest that web searching could be greatly enhanced combining NTTs (and STTs) with TTs in an initial query. Additionally, search results would improve if queries are restricted to the exact title or URL search options. Finally, we suggest the development and implementation of knowledge-based lists of NTTs (and STTs) by both general and specialized search engines to aid query expansion.

0.011095227 = product of:
  0.044380907 = sum of:
    0.044380907 = product of:
      0.088761814 = sum of:
        0.088761814 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088761814 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, 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=844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 6.2008 16:22:20

0.010456172 = product of:
  0.041824687 = sum of:
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 6103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=6103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 6103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ambiguities in Web search tool (more commonly known as "search engine") terminology are problematic when conducting precise, replicable research or when teaching others to use search tools. Standardized terminology would enable Web searchers to be aware of subtle differences between Web search tools and the implications of these for searching. A categorization and nomenclature for standardized classifications of different aspects of Web search tools is proposed, and advantages and disadvantages of using tools in each category are discussed

0.009149151 = product of:
  0.036596604 = sum of:
    0.036596604 = product of:
      0.07319321 = sum of:
        0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07319321 = score(doc=6098,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ethical aspects of the employment of Web crawlers for information science research and other contexts are reviewed. The difference between legal and ethical uses of communications technologies is emphasized as well as the changing boundary between ethical and unethical conduct. A review of the potential impacts on Web site owners is used to underpin a new framework for ethical crawling, and it is argued that delicate human judgment is required for each individual case, with verdicts likely to change over time. Decisions can be based upon an approximate cost-benefit analysis, but it is crucial that crawler owners find out about the technological issues affecting the owners of the sites being crawled in order to produce an informed assessment.

0.007845511 = product of:
  0.031382043 = sum of:
    0.031382043 = product of:
      0.062764086 = sum of:
        0.062764086 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062764086 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=2723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative study of six French-language Web directories (MSN, Nomade, Open Directory, Voila, Voila Pages Perso, and Yahoo). The study focuses an the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the organization of these directories, and an the way in which they describe sites. It reveals a wide variety of structures, content and organizational principles. In this respect, Web directories do not correspond to classic theories of classification. They highlight the difficulty of proposing a structured representation of the heterogeneous content of the Web.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=4734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 4734, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=5245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 5245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Given that time is money, Web searching can be a very expensive proposition. Even with the best search technology, the usefulness of search results depends on the searcher's ability to use that technology effectively. In an effort to improve this ability, our research investigates the effects of logic training, interface training, and the type of search interface on the search process. In a study with 145 participants, we found that even limited training in basic Boolean logic improved performance with a simple search interface. Surprisingly, for users of an interface that assisted them in forming syntactically correct Boolean queries, performance was negatively affected by logic training and unaffected by interface training. Use of the assisted interface itself, however, resulted in strong improvements in performance over use of the simple interface. In addition to being useful for search engine providers, these findings are important for all companies that rely heavily on search for critical aspects of their operations, in that they demonstrate simple means by which the search experience can be improved for their employees and customers.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metasearch engines are an intuitive method for improving the performance of Web search by increasing coverage, returning large numbers of results with a focus on relevance, and presenting alternative views of information needs. However, the use of metasearch engines in an operational environment is not well understood. In this study, we investigate the usage of Dogpile.com, a major Web metasearch engine, with the aim of discovering how Web searchers interact with metasearch engines. We report results examining 2,465,145 interactions from 534,507 users of Dogpile.com on May 6, 2005 and compare these results with findings from other Web searching studies. We collect data on geographical location of searchers, use of system feedback, content selection, sessions, queries, and term usage. Findings show that Dogpile.com searchers are mainly from the USA (84% of searchers), use about 3 terms per query (mean = 2.85), implement system feedback moderately (8.4% of users), and generally (56% of users) spend less than one minute interacting with the Web search engine. Overall, metasearchers seem to have higher degrees of interaction than searchers on non-metasearch engines, but their sessions are for a shorter period of time. These aspects of metasearching may be what define the differences from other forms of Web searching. We discuss the implications of our findings in relation to metasearch for Web searchers, search engines, and content providers.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Detecting query reformulations within a session by a Web searcher is an important area of research for designing more helpful searching systems and targeting content to particular users. Methods explored by other researchers include both qualitative (i.e., the use of human judges to manually analyze query patterns on usually small samples) and nondeterministic algorithms, typically using large amounts of training data to predict query modification during sessions. In this article, we explore three alternative methods for detection of session boundaries. All three methods are computationally straightforward and therefore easily implemented for detection of session changes. We examine 2,465,145 interactions from 534,507 users of Dogpile.com on May 6, 2005. We compare session analysis using (a) Internet Protocol address and cookie; (b) Internet Protocol address, cookie, and a temporal limit on intrasession interactions; and (c) Internet Protocol address, cookie, and query reformulation patterns. Overall, our analysis shows that defining sessions by query reformulation along with Internet Protocol address and cookie provides the best measure, resulting in an 82% increase in the count of sessions. Regardless of the method used, the mean session length was fewer than three queries, and the mean session duration was less than 30 min. Searchers most often modified their query by changing query terms (nearly 23% of all query modifications) rather than adding or deleting terms. Implications are that for measuring searching traffic, unique sessions may be a better indicator than the common metric of unique visitors. This research also sheds light on the more complex aspects of Web searching involving query modifications and may lead to advances in searching tools.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=861,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 861, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss the importance of usability and overall user satisfaction when comparing performance of different search engines. Design/methodology/approach - The study described in this paper starts from an investigation of existing methodologies for evaluating search engines in order to find out what are the most important factors for users to decide which system to use when searching the World Wide Web. Findings - This study confirmed that usability and popularity are closely linked. This study has shown that no one-search engine holds the key to ultimate search results. Just as there is cultural, political and geographical differences in the world's population, there are a number of search engines to fit the individual needs of every net citizen. Whereas results, precision, recall and reliability are the factors which participants prize highly, regardless of all other aspects. It was found that the speed of search engine results has become a high priority to participants. Research limitations/implications - Number of participants was limited and although some questions were confusing to some individuals, a majority of questionnaires were completed in a satisfactory fashion. Originality/value - This paper describes a usability study involving different search engines looking at links between popularity and usability.

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=4875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4875, 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=4875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:16

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, 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=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 208, 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=208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.5-22