Search (136 results, page 1 of 7)

0.1062469 = product of:
  0.2124938 = sum of:
    0.2124938 = sum of:
      0.17247704 = weight(_text_:500 in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17247704 = score(doc=661,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
      0.040016767 = weight(_text_:22 in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040016767 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explicit definition of the limits of citation analysis demands additional tests for the validity of citation analysis. The stability of citation rankings over time can be regarded as confirming the validity of evaluative citation analysis. This stability over time was investigated for two sets of citation records from the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA) for articles published in journals classified in Journal Citation Reports as Mathematics. These sets are of all such articles for the 1960s and for the 1970s. This study employs only descriptive statistics and draws no inferences to any larger population. The study found a high correlation from one decade to the next of rankings among sets of most highly cited articles. However, the study found a low correlation for rankings among articles whose ranks were the 500 directly below those of the 500 most cited. This perhaps expected result is discussed in terms of the Glänzel-Schubert-Schoepflin stochastic model for citation processes and also in connection with an account of the purposes of evaluative citation analysis. This interpretative context suggests why the limitations of citation analysis may be inherent to citation analysis even when it is done well.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:23:35

0.076158956 = sum of:
  0.052148893 = product of:
    0.15644668 = sum of:
      0.15644668 = weight(_text_:objects in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15644668 = score(doc=2835,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024010058 = product of:
    0.048020117 = sum of:
      0.048020117 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048020117 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.07317581 = product of:
  0.14635162 = sum of:
    0.14635162 = product of:
      0.29270324 = sum of:
        0.29270324 = weight(_text_:500 in 1279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29270324 = score(doc=1279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.81052876 = fieldWeight in 1279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.048783872 = product of:
  0.097567745 = sum of:
    0.097567745 = product of:
      0.19513549 = sum of:
        0.19513549 = weight(_text_:500 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19513549 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The S-shaped functional relation between the mean citation score and the proportion of top 10% publications for the 500 Leiden Ranking universities is explained using results of the shifted Lotka function. Also the concave or convex relation between the proportion of top 100?% publications, for different fractions ?, is explained using the obtained new informetric model.

0.04311926 = product of:
  0.08623852 = sum of:
    0.08623852 = product of:
      0.17247704 = sum of:
        0.17247704 = weight(_text_:500 in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17247704 = score(doc=3152,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigate the citation distributions of the 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the Leiden Ranking produced by The Centre for Science and Technological Studies. We use a Web of Science data set consisting of 3.6 million articles published in 2003 to 2008 and classified into 5,119 clusters. The main findings are the following. First, the universality claim, according to which all university-citation distributions, appropriately normalized, follow a single functional form, is not supported by the data. Second, the 500 university citation distributions are all highly skewed and very similar. Broadly speaking, university citation distributions appear to behave as if they differ by a relatively constant scale factor over a large, intermediate part of their support. Third, citation-impact differences between universities account for 3.85% of overall citation inequality. This percentage is greatly reduced when university citation distributions are normalized using their mean normalized citation scores (MNCSs) as normalization factors. Finally, regarding practical consequences, we only need a single explanatory model for the type of high skewness characterizing all university citation distributions, and the similarity of university citation distributions goes a long way in explaining the similarity of the university rankings obtained with the MNCS and the Top 10% indicator.

0.03687484 = product of:
  0.07374968 = sum of:
    0.07374968 = product of:
      0.22124901 = sum of:
        0.22124901 = weight(_text_:objects in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22124901 = score(doc=203,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.7046855 = fieldWeight in 203, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=203)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Changes in the topography of the Web can be expressed in at least four ways: (1) more sites on more servers in more places, (2) more pages and objects added to existing sites and pages, (3) changes in traffic, and (4) modifications to existing text, graphic, and other Web objects. This article does not address the first three factors (more sites, more pages, more traffic) in the growth of the Web. It focuses instead on changes to an existing set of Web documents. The article documents changes to an aging set of Web pages, first identified and "collected" in December 1996 and followed weekly thereafter. Results are reported through February 2001. The article addresses two related phenomena: (1) the life cycle of Web objects, and (2) changes to Web objects. These data reaffirm that the half-life of a Web page is approximately 2 years. There is variation among Web pages by top-level domain and by page type (navigation, content). Web page content appears to stabilize over time; aging pages change less often than once they did

0.036587905 = product of:
  0.07317581 = sum of:
    0.07317581 = product of:
      0.14635162 = sum of:
        0.14635162 = weight(_text_:500 in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14635162 = score(doc=2571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 2571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A common task in both Webmetrics and Web information retrieval is to identify a set of Web pages or sites that are similar in content. In this paper we assess the extent to which links, colinks and couplings can be used to identify similar Web sites. As an experiment, a random sample of 500 pairs of domains from the UK academic Web were taken and human assessments of site similarity, based upon content type, were compared against ratings for the three concepts. The results show that using a combination of all three gives the highest probability of identifying similar sites, but surprisingly this was only a marginal improvement over using links alone. Another unexpected result was that high values for either colink counts or couplings were associated with only a small increased likelihood of similarity. The principal advantage of using couplings and colinks was found to be greater coverage in terms of a much larger number of pairs of sites being connected by these measures, instead of increased probability of similarity. In information retrieval terminology, this is improved recall rather than improved precision.

0.032013413 = product of:
  0.064026825 = sum of:
    0.064026825 = product of:
      0.12805365 = sum of:
        0.12805365 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12805365 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.032013413 = product of:
  0.064026825 = sum of:
    0.064026825 = product of:
      0.12805365 = sum of:
        0.12805365 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12805365 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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

0.032013413 = product of:
  0.064026825 = sum of:
    0.064026825 = product of:
      0.12805365 = sum of:
        0.12805365 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12805365 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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

0.030489922 = product of:
  0.060979843 = sum of:
    0.060979843 = product of:
      0.12195969 = sum of:
        0.12195969 = weight(_text_:500 in 2114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12195969 = score(doc=2114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 2114, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Walters and Wilder describe the literature of later-life migration, a multi-disciplinary topic, and evaluate its bibliographic coverage in seven disciplinary and five multi-disciplinary databases. Multiple database searches and reviews of the references of found items discovered over 500 papers published between January 1990 and December 2000. These were then read to determine if late-life migration was their central focus, and to select those which presented noteworthy findings, innovative approaches, or were covering topics unseen elsewhere, and also were understandable to a broad readership, and generally available. One hundred and fifty five journal articles met these criteria and are the focus of the study. The core journals of sociology, economics, and demography are not major contributors, but three gerontology journals are in the top five. The top two journals have broad coverage, but the others tend to concentrate on one of five themes. The top five journals account for 40 % of papers and the top twelve 70%. Of nine papers cited 30 or more times seven appeared in the top 12 contributing journals. The median article in the study was indexed by six of the twelve databases, and 12% were indexed by more than 7 databases. The correlation between citation and number of databases indexing a paper is very low. Social Sciences Citation Index will 73% coverage. Typical overlap in the 12 databases is about 45%.

0.030489922 = product of:
  0.060979843 = sum of:
    0.060979843 = product of:
      0.12195969 = sum of:
        0.12195969 = weight(_text_:500 in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12195969 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

0.030489922 = product of:
  0.060979843 = sum of:
    0.060979843 = product of:
      0.12195969 = sum of:
        0.12195969 = weight(_text_:500 in 1663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12195969 = score(doc=1663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 1663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.3, S.489-500

0.030489922 = product of:
  0.060979843 = sum of:
    0.060979843 = product of:
      0.12195969 = sum of:
        0.12195969 = weight(_text_:500 in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12195969 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.

0.030489922 = product of:
  0.060979843 = sum of:
    0.060979843 = product of:
      0.12195969 = sum of:
        0.12195969 = weight(_text_:500 in 4374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12195969 = score(doc=4374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 4374, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the consequences of choosing different classification systems-namely, the way publications (or journals) are assigned to scientific fields-for the ranking of research units. We study the impact of this choice on the ranking of 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the Leiden Ranking in two cases. First, we compare a Web of Science (WoS) journal-level classification system, consisting of 236 subject categories, and a publication-level algorithmically constructed system, denoted G8, consisting of 5,119 clusters. The result is that the consequences of the move from the WoS to the G8 system using the Top 1% citation impact indicator are much greater than the consequences of this move using the Top 10% indicator. Second, we compare the G8 classification system and a publication-level alternative of the same family, the G6 system, consisting of 1,363 clusters. The result is that, although less important than in the previous case, the consequences of the move from the G6 to the G8 system under the Top 1% indicator are still of a large order of magnitude.

0.030442448 = sum of:
  0.01843742 = product of:
    0.055312254 = sum of:
      0.055312254 = weight(_text_:objects in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055312254 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.17617138 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.012005029 = product of:
    0.024010058 = sum of:
      0.024010058 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024010058 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.028296126 = product of:
  0.056592252 = sum of:
    0.056592252 = product of:
      0.113184504 = sum of:
        0.113184504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113184504 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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

0.028296126 = product of:
  0.056592252 = sum of:
    0.056592252 = product of:
      0.113184504 = sum of:
        0.113184504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113184504 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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

0.028011736 = product of:
  0.05602347 = sum of:
    0.05602347 = product of:
      0.11204694 = sum of:
        0.11204694 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11204694 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.028011736 = product of:
  0.05602347 = sum of:
    0.05602347 = product of:
      0.11204694 = sum of:
        0.11204694 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11204694 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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