Search (166 results, page 2 of 9)

0.027565593 = product of:
  0.055131186 = sum of:
    0.055131186 = product of:
      0.11026237 = sum of:
        0.11026237 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11026237 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.024364771 = product of:
  0.048729543 = sum of:
    0.048729543 = product of:
      0.097459085 = sum of:
        0.097459085 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097459085 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.024364771 = product of:
  0.048729543 = sum of:
    0.048729543 = product of:
      0.097459085 = sum of:
        0.097459085 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097459085 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A measure of formal journal utility designed to offset some of the more noteworthy limitations of the impact factor (IF) - i.e., short follow-up, citations to items in the numerator that are not included in the denominator, self-citations, and the greater citation rate of review articles - was constructed and applied to 15 crime-psychology journals. This measure, referred to as Citations Per Article (CPA), was correlated with a measure of informal journal utility defined as the frequency with which 58 first authors in the field consulted these 15 crime-psychology journals. Results indicated that the CPA, but not the IF, correlated significantly with informal utility. Two journals (Law and Human Behavior and Criminal Justice and Behavior) displayed consistently high impact across measures of formal and informal utility while several other journals (Journal of Interpersonal Violence; Psychology, Public Policy, and Law; Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment; and Behavioral Sciences and the Law) showed signs of moderate impact when formal and informal measures were combined.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In addition to science citation indicators of journals like impact and immediacy, social network analysis provides a set of centrality measures like degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality. These measures are first analyzed for the entire set of 7,379 journals included in the Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index 2004 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), and then also in relation to local citation environments that can be considered as proxies of specialties and disciplines. Betweenness centrality is shown to be an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals, but only in local citation environments and after normalization; otherwise, the influence of degree centrality (size) overshadows the betweenness-centrality measure. The indicator is applied to a variety of citation environments, including policy-relevant ones like biotechnology and nanotechnology. The values of the indicator remain sensitive to the delineations of the set because of the indicator's local character. Maps showing interdisciplinarity of journals in terms of betweenness centrality can be drawn using information about journal citation environments, which is available online.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=3580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=4131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many countries are moving towards research policies that emphasize excellence; consequently; they develop evaluation systems to identify universities, research groups, and researchers that can be said to be "excellent." Such active research policy strategies, in which evaluations are used to concentrate resources, are based on an unsubstantiated assumption that researchers' track records are indicative of their future research performance. In this study, information on authors' track records (previous publication volume and previous citation rate) is used to predict the impact of their articles. The study concludes that, to a certain degree, the impact of scientific work can be predicted using information on how often an author's previous publications have been cited. The relationship between past performance and the citation rate of articles is strongest at the high end of the citation distribution. The implications of these results are discussed in the context of a cumulative advantage process.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The objective of this research is to examine the interaction of institutions, based on their citation and collaboration networks. The domain of library and information science is examined, using data from 1965-2010. A linear model is formulated to explore the factors that are associated with institutional citation behaviors, using the number of citations as the dependent variable, and the number of collaborations, physical distance, and topical distance as independent variables. It is found that institutional citation behaviors are associated with social, topical, and geographical factors. Dynamically, the number of citations is becoming more associated with collaboration intensity and less dependent on the country boundary and/or physical distance. This research is informative for scientometricians and policy makers.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the InformationSystems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009 were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite. Design/methodology/approach The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer. Findings - Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles. Research limitations/implications - The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self-serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science. Originality/value - This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that citations to Chinese research publications are rising sharply. A series of reasons have been highlighted in previous studies. This research explores another possibility-whether there is a "clubbing" effect in China's surge in research citations, in which a higher rate of internal citing takes place among influential Chinese researchers. Focusing on the most highly cited research articles in nanotechnology, we find that a larger proportion of Chinese nanotechnology research citations are localized within individual, institutional, and national networks within China. Both descriptive and statistical tests suggest that highly cited Chinese papers are more likely than similar U.S. papers to receive internal and localized citations. Tentative explanations and policy implications are discussed.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=3782,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal's academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Detecting emerging research topics is essential, not only for research agencies but also for individual researchers. Previous studies have created various bibliographic indicators for the identification of emerging research topics. However, as indicated by Rotolo et al. (Research Policy 44, 1827-1843, 2015), the most serious problems are the lack of an acknowledged definition of emergence and incomplete elaboration of the linkages between the definitions that are used and the indicators that are created. With these issues in mind, this study first adjusts the definition of an emerging technology that Rotolo et al. (2015) have proposed to accommodate the analysis. Next, a set of criteria for the identification of emerging topics is proposed according to the adjusted definition and attributes of emergence. Using two sets of parameter values, several emerging research topics are identified. Finally, evaluation tests are conducted by demonstration of the proposed approach and comparison with previous studies. The strength of the present methodology lies in the fact that it is fully transparent, straightforward, and flexible.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigated the similarities of pairs of articles that are cocited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence, and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the cocitation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article cocitation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compared the results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B, and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular cocitation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature.

0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article1 describes the possibilities to analyze open access (OA) publishing in the Netherlands in an international comparative way. OA publishing is now actively stimulated by Dutch science policy, similar to the United Kingdom. We conducted a bibliometric baseline measurement to assess the current situation, to be able to measure developments over time. We collected data from various sources, and for three different smaller European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland). Not all of the analyses for this baseline measurement are included here. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the various ways OA can be defined using the Web of Science, limiting the analysis mainly to Gold OA. From the data we collected we can conclude that the way OA is currently registered in various electronic bibliographic databases is quite unclear, and various methods applied deliver results that are different, although the impact scores derived from the data point in the same direction.

0.024119893 = product of:
  0.048239786 = sum of:
    0.048239786 = product of:
      0.09647957 = sum of:
        0.09647957 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09647957 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, 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=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.024119893 = product of:
  0.048239786 = sum of:
    0.048239786 = product of:
      0.09647957 = sum of:
        0.09647957 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09647957 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55