-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.08
0.07944219 = product of:
0.15888438 = sum of:
0.15888438 = sum of:
0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499843 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.073885955 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.073885955 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
-
Schreiber, M.: Revisiting the g-index : the average number of citations in the g-core (2009)
0.03
0.034700464 = product of:
0.06940093 = sum of:
0.06940093 = product of:
0.13880186 = sum of:
0.13880186 = weight(_text_:g in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13880186 = score(doc=3313,freq=12.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.81318647 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The g-index is discussed in terms of the average number of citations of the publications in the g-core, showing that it combines features of the h-index and the A-index in one number. For a visualization, data of 8 famous physicists are presented and analyzed. In comparison with the h-index, the g-index increases between 67% and 144%, on average by a factor of 2.
- Object
- g-index
-
Schreiber, M.: Fractionalized counting of publications for the g-Index (2009)
0.03
0.030051483 = product of:
0.060102966 = sum of:
0.060102966 = product of:
0.12020593 = sum of:
0.12020593 = weight(_text_:g in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12020593 = score(doc=3125,freq=16.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- L. Egghe ([2008]) studied the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index, counting the authorship of cited articles in a fractional way. But his definition of the gF-index for the case that the article count is fractionalized yielded values that were close to or even larger than the original g-index. Here I propose an alternative definition by which the g-index is modified in such a way that the resulting gm-index is always smaller than the original g-index. Based on the interpretation of the g-index as the highest number of articles of a scientist that received on average g or more citations, in the specification of the new gm-index the articles are counted fractionally not only for the rank but also for the average.
- Object
- g-index
-
Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005)
0.03
0.02648073 = product of:
0.05296146 = sum of:
0.05296146 = sum of:
0.028332809 = weight(_text_:g in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028332809 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.165991 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
0.024628652 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024628652 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.
- Date
- 20. 3.2005 10:54:22
-
Egghe, L.: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship (2008)
0.03
0.026025347 = product of:
0.052050695 = sum of:
0.052050695 = product of:
0.10410139 = sum of:
0.10410139 = weight(_text_:g in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10410139 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.60988986 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.
- Object
- g-index
-
Egghe, L.: ¬The influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index (2008)
0.02
0.024791209 = product of:
0.049582418 = sum of:
0.049582418 = product of:
0.099164836 = sum of:
0.099164836 = weight(_text_:g in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099164836 = score(doc=1881,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5809685 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.
- Object
- g-index
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.02
0.024628652 = product of:
0.049257305 = sum of:
0.049257305 = product of:
0.09851461 = sum of:
0.09851461 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09851461 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Woeginger, G.J.: Generalizations of Egghe's g-index (2009)
0.02
0.024536934 = product of:
0.049073867 = sum of:
0.049073867 = product of:
0.098147735 = sum of:
0.098147735 = weight(_text_:g in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098147735 = score(doc=2857,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper introduces the generalized Egghe-indices as a new family of scientific impact measures for ranking the output of scientific researchers. The definition of this family is strongly inspired by Egghe's well-known g-index. The main contribution of the paper is a family of axiomatic characterizations that characterize every generalized Egghe-index in terms of four axioms.
- Object
- g-Index
-
Schreiber, M.: ¬An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index (2008)
0.02
0.02342549 = product of:
0.04685098 = sum of:
0.04685098 = product of:
0.09370196 = sum of:
0.09370196 = weight(_text_:g in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09370196 = score(doc=1968,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5489636 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.021768859 = product of:
0.043537717 = sum of:
0.043537717 = product of:
0.087075435 = sum of:
0.087075435 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087075435 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = 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
-
Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005)
0.02
0.021249607 = product of:
0.042499214 = sum of:
0.042499214 = product of:
0.08499843 = sum of:
0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499843 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Ohly, H.P.: ¬Der 'Stand der Technik' : eine bibliometrische Betrachtungsweise (2000)
0.01
0.0141664045 = product of:
0.028332809 = sum of:
0.028332809 = product of:
0.056665618 = sum of:
0.056665618 = weight(_text_:g in 6644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056665618 = score(doc=6644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.331982 = fieldWeight in 6644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6644)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Globalisierung und Wissensorganisation: Neue Aspekte für Wissen, Wissenschaft und Informationssysteme: Proceedings der 6. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Hamburg, 23.-25.9.1999. Hrsg.: H.P. Ohly, G. Rahmstorf u. A. Sigel
-
Kurtz, M.J.; Eichhorn, G.; Accomazzi, A.; Grant, C.; Demleitner, M.; Henneken, E.; Murray, S.S.: ¬The effect of use and access on citations (2005)
0.01
0.0141664045 = product of:
0.028332809 = sum of:
0.028332809 = product of:
0.056665618 = sum of:
0.056665618 = weight(_text_:g in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056665618 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.331982 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Tscherteu, G.; Langreiter, C.: Explorative Netzwerkanalyse im Living Web (2009)
0.01
0.0141664045 = product of:
0.028332809 = sum of:
0.028332809 = product of:
0.056665618 = sum of:
0.056665618 = weight(_text_:g in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056665618 = score(doc=4870,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.331982 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006)
0.01
0.013061317 = product of:
0.026122633 = sum of:
0.026122633 = product of:
0.052245267 = sum of:
0.052245267 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052245267 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:20:22
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.013061317 = product of:
0.026122633 = sum of:
0.026122633 = product of:
0.052245267 = sum of:
0.052245267 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052245267 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Egghe, L.: Mathematical study of h-index sequences (2009)
0.01
0.012521451 = product of:
0.025042903 = sum of:
0.025042903 = product of:
0.050085805 = sum of:
0.050085805 = weight(_text_:g in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050085805 = score(doc=4217,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.2934334 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.
-
Schlögl, C.: Informationskompetenz am Beispiel einer szientometrischen Untersuchung zum Informationsmanagement (2000)
0.01
0.0123956045 = product of:
0.024791209 = sum of:
0.024791209 = product of:
0.049582418 = sum of:
0.049582418 = weight(_text_:g in 5485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049582418 = score(doc=5485,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 5485, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5485)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Informationskompetenz - Basiskompetenz in der Informationsgesellschaft: Proceedings des 7. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2000), Hrsg.: G. Knorz u. R. Kuhlen
-
Ivancheva, L.E.: ¬The non-Gaussian nature of bibliometric and scientometric distributions : a new approach to interpretation (2001)
0.01
0.0123956045 = product of:
0.024791209 = sum of:
0.024791209 = product of:
0.049582418 = sum of:
0.049582418 = weight(_text_:g in 6846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049582418 = score(doc=6846,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 6846, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6846)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- An attempt has been made to give an answer to the question: Why do most bibliometric and scientometric laws reveal characters of Non-Gaussian distributions, i.e., have unduly long "tails"? We tried to apply the approach of the so-called "Universal Law," discovered by G. Stankov (1997, 1998). The basic principle we have used here is that of the reciprocity of energy and space. A new "wave concept" of scientific information has been propounded, in which terms the well-known bibliometric and scientometric distributions find a rather satisfactory explanation. One of the made corollaries is that a = 1 is the most reasonable value for the family of Zipf laws, applied to information or social phenomena.
-
Marchionini, G.: Co-evolution of user and organizational interfaces : a longitudinal case study of WWW dissemination of national statistics (2002)
0.01
0.0123956045 = product of:
0.024791209 = sum of:
0.024791209 = product of:
0.049582418 = sum of:
0.049582418 = weight(_text_:g in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049582418 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
