Search (134 results, page 1 of 7)

0.084855 = product of:
  0.21213749 = sum of:
    0.16231588 = weight(_text_:objects in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16231588 = score(doc=2835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
    0.04982162 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04982162 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.055525966 = product of:
  0.13881491 = sum of:
    0.08068969 = weight(_text_:cd in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08068969 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25286767 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.3190985 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.058125224 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058125224 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the literature of Qigong: a relaxation technique used to teach patients to control their heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and other involuntary functions through controlles breathing. All articles indexed in the MEDLINE CD-ROM database, between 1965 and 1995 were identified using 'breathing exercises' MeSH term. The articles were analyzed for geographical and language distribution and a ranking exercise enabled a core list of periodicals to be identified. In addition, the study shed light on the changing frequency of the MeSH terms and evaluated the research areas by measuring the information from these respective MeSH headings

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44

0.04759369 = product of:
  0.11898422 = sum of:
    0.0691626 = weight(_text_:cd in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0691626 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25286767 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.27351302 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
    0.04982162 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04982162 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.045909863 = product of:
  0.2295493 = sum of:
    0.2295493 = weight(_text_:objects in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2295493 = score(doc=203,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.032919254 = product of:
  0.08229814 = sum of:
    0.057387326 = weight(_text_:objects in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057387326 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
    0.02491081 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02491081 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.027052647 = product of:
  0.13526323 = sum of:
    0.13526323 = weight(_text_:objects in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13526323 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.

0.02657153 = product of:
  0.13285765 = sum of:
    0.13285765 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13285765 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.02657153 = product of:
  0.13285765 = sum of:
    0.13285765 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13285765 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.02657153 = product of:
  0.13285765 = sum of:
    0.13285765 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13285765 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.026506072 = product of:
  0.13253036 = sum of:
    0.13253036 = weight(_text_:objects in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13253036 = score(doc=584,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.4068504 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means of evaluation in informetric studies such as cocitation analysis. In this first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, are introduced and discussed. The motivation is spurred by the recent debate on choice of proximity measures and their potential influence upon clustering and ordination results. The two important issues discussed here are matrix generation and the composition of proximity measures. The approach to matrix generation is demonstrated for the same data set, i.e., how data is represented and transformed in a matrix, evidently determines the behavior of proximity measures. Two different matrix generation approaches, in all probability, will lead to different proximity rankings of objects, which further lead to different ordination and clustering results for the same set of objects. Further, a resemblance in the composition of formulas indicates whether two proximity measures may produce similar ordination and clustering results. However, as shown in the case of the angular correlation and cosine measures, a small deviation in otherwise similar formulas can lead to different rankings depending on the contour of the data matrix transformed. Eventually, the behavior of proximity measures, that is whether they produce similar rankings of objects, is more or less data-specific. Consequently, the authors recommend the use of empirical matrix comparison techniques for individual studies to investigate the degree of resemblance between proximity measures or their ordination results. In part two of the article, the authors introduce and demonstrate two related statistical matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures.

0.023486136 = product of:
  0.11743068 = sum of:
    0.11743068 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11743068 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.023486136 = product of:
  0.11743068 = sum of:
    0.11743068 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11743068 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.02325009 = product of:
  0.11625045 = sum of:
    0.11625045 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11625045 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

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

0.02325009 = product of:
  0.11625045 = sum of:
    0.11625045 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11625045 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.02325009 = product of:
  0.11625045 = sum of:
    0.11625045 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11625045 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

0.022954931 = product of:
  0.11477465 = sum of:
    0.11477465 = weight(_text_:objects in 332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11477465 = score(doc=332,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 332, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=332)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

WWW and related information technologies are transforming the distribution of scientific and technical information (STI). We examine 11 recent, functioning digital libraries focusing on the distribution of STI publications, including journal articles, conference papers, and technical reports. We introduce 4 main categories of digital library projects: based on the architecture (distributed vs. centralized) and the contributor (traditional publisher vs. authoring individual / organization). Many digital library prototypes merely automate existing publishing practices or focus solely on the digitization of the publishing practices cycle output, not sampling and capturing elements of the input. Still others do not consider for distribution the large body of 'gray literature'. We address these deficiencies in the current model of STI exchange by suggesting methods for expanding the scope and target of digital libraries by focusing on a greater source of technical publications and using 'buckets', an object-oriented construct for grouping logically related information objects, to include holdings other than technical publications

0.022954931 = product of:
  0.11477465 = sum of:
    0.11477465 = weight(_text_:objects in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11477465 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The present paper is devoted to two directions in algorithmic classificatory procedures: the journal co-citation analysis as an example of citation networks and lexical analysis of keywords in the titles and texts. What is common to those approaches is the general idea of normalization of deviations of the observed data from the mathematical expectation. The application of the same formula leads to discovery of statistically significant links between objects (journals in one case, keywords - in the other). The results of the journal co-citation analysis are reflected in tables and map for field "Women's Studies" and for field "Information Science and Library Science". An experimental attempt at establishing textual links between words was carried out on two samples from SSCI Data base: (1) EDUCATION and (2) ETHICS. The EDUCATION file included 2180 documents (of which 751 had abstracts); the ETHICS file included 807 documents (289 abstracts). Some examples of the results of this pilot study are given in tabular form . The binary links between words discovered in this way may form triplets or other groups with more than two member words.

0.022822496 = product of:
  0.114112474 = sum of:
    0.114112474 = weight(_text_:cd in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114112474 = score(doc=8281,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25286767 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.45127347 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences

0.021642117 = product of:
  0.108210586 = sum of:
    0.108210586 = weight(_text_:objects in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108210586 = score(doc=582,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.33219194 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means for evaluation purposes in informetric studies such as cocitation analysis. In the first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, matrix generation, and the composition of proximity measures, are introduced and discussed. In this second part, the authors introduce and thoroughly demonstrate two related matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. In common with these techniques is the application of permutation procedures to test hypotheses about matrix resemblances. The choice of technique is related to the validation at hand. In the case of the Mantel test, the degree of resemblance between two measures forecast their potentially different affect upon ordination and clustering results. In principle, two proximity measures with a very strong resemblance most likely produce identical results, thus, choice of measure between the two becomes less important. Alternatively, or as a supplement, Procrustes analysis compares the actual ordination results without investigating the underlying proximity measures, by matching two configurations of the same objects in a multidimensional space. An advantage of the Procrustes analysis though, is the graphical solution provided by the superimposition plot and the resulting decomposition of variance components. Accordingly, the Procrustes analysis provides not only a measure of general fit between configurations, but also values for individual objects enabling more elaborate validations. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures.

0.019928647 = product of:
  0.09964324 = sum of:
    0.09964324 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09964324 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22