Search (77 results, page 2 of 4)

0.0071324534 = product of:
  0.04992717 = sum of:
    0.04992717 = weight(_text_:digital in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04992717 = score(doc=2525,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

0.0070607685 = product of:
  0.04942538 = sum of:
    0.04942538 = weight(_text_:digital in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04942538 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Without reform and adaptation to contemporary technology, existing paper libraries may become increasingly marginalized and eventually little more than book museums. Proposes a new method to organize access to paper resources by using relational database management systems technology to change libraries' existing data structures and concepts of organization of materials in order to create an open, shared, easy-to-use and cooperatively maintained system. Without substantial proactive change, users familiar with accessing and manipulating digital materials will become very intolerant of the anomalies and archaisms of libraries' card-based automated catalogues. Outlines the benefits of such a system and lists considerations which should be taken into account in its design

0.0070607685 = product of:
  0.04942538 = sum of:
    0.04942538 = weight(_text_:digital in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04942538 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.

0.0070607685 = product of:
  0.04942538 = sum of:
    0.04942538 = weight(_text_:digital in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04942538 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0070607685 = product of:
  0.04942538 = sum of:
    0.04942538 = weight(_text_:digital in 3140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04942538 = score(doc=3140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 3140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3140)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die 40 im i.d.a.-Dachverband zusammengeschlossenen Bibliotheken, Archive und Dokumentations-stellen in Deutschland, Österreich, Luxemburg, Italien und der Schweiz verfügen über einzigartige Archivbestände zu Aktivistinnen und Organisationen aus den verschiedenen Phasen und Richtungen der Frauenbewegung des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Darüber hinaus stellen sie umfassende Literatur zu Frauenbewegungen, Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung, lesbischer und queerer Theorie und Belletristik bereit. Im Zuge des vom BMFSJ finanzierten META-Projekts wurde in drei Jahren der META-Katalog geschaffen, der den Großteil der digital verfügbaren Metadaten aus den verschiedenen Einrichtungen nachweist. Trotz der unterschiedlichen Ausgangslagen der Einrichtungen (Einrichtungstypus, Sammlungsschwerpunkt, technische Ausstattung) ist es gelungen ein Nachweisinstrument zu schaffen, dass den Nutzenden ein homogenes Nutzungserlebnis ermöglicht.

0.0070607685 = product of:
  0.04942538 = sum of:
    0.04942538 = weight(_text_:digital in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04942538 = score(doc=5277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5277)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Shifting library catalogs from physical to digital has come at a cost. Catalog records no longer leave traces of their own evolution, which is a loss for librarianship. The subjective nature of information classification warrants self-examination, within which we may see the evolution of practice, debates over attribution and relevance, and how culture is reflected in the systems used to describe it. Wikipedia models what is possible: revision histories and discussion pages function as knowledge generators. A list of unanswerable questions for the modern catalog urges us to construct a new, forward-thinking bibliography that allows us to look backward.

0.006988349 = product of:
  0.04891844 = sum of:
    0.04891844 = weight(_text_:digital in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04891844 = score(doc=2429,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.30194187 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.006359728 = product of:
  0.044518095 = sum of:
    0.044518095 = product of:
      0.08903619 = sum of:
        0.08903619 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08903619 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14382903 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04107254 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, 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=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.006359728 = product of:
  0.044518095 = sum of:
    0.044518095 = product of:
      0.08903619 = sum of:
        0.08903619 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08903619 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14382903 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04107254 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, 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=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.006290222 = product of:
  0.044031553 = sum of:
    0.044031553 = weight(_text_:techniques in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044031553 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18093403 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 separate but related projects to study the influence of spelling errors (misspellings), made by searchers, on the subject searching of online catalogues and to suggest ways of improving error detection systems to handle the errors that they detect. This involved the categorization of user queries for subjects that were extracted from the online catalogue transaction logs of 4 USA university libraries. The research questions considered: the prevalence of misspellings in user queries for subjects; and how users respond to online catalogues that detect possible spelling errors in their subject queries. Less than 6% of user queries that match the catalogue's controlled and free text terms were found to contain spelling errors. While the majority of users corrected misspelled query words, a sizable proportion made an action that was even more detrimental than the original misspelling. Concludes with 3 recommended improvements: online catalogues should be equipped with search trees to place the burden of selecting a subject the system instead of the user; systems should be equipped with automatic spelling checking routines that inform users of possibly misspelled words; and online catalogues should be enhanced with tools and techniques to distinguish between queries that fail due to misspellings and correction failures. Cautions that spelling is not a serious problem but can seriously hinder the most routine subject search

0.006290222 = product of:
  0.044031553 = sum of:
    0.044031553 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044031553 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18093403 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.

0.0060520875 = product of:
  0.042364612 = sum of:
    0.042364612 = weight(_text_:digital in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042364612 = score(doc=240,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper presents several reflections on the traditional card catalogues and RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is "the" standard for creating the Semantic Web. This work grew out of discussion between the authors after Working Group on Metadata Schemes meeting held at IFLA conference in Buenos Aires (2004). The paper provides an overview of RDF from the perspective of cataloguers, catalogues and library cards. The central theme is the discussion of resource description as a discipline that could be based on RDF. RDF is explained as a very simple grammar, using metadata and ontologies to semantic search and access. RDF Knitting the Semantic Web Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Volume 43, Numbers 3/4 has the ability to enhance 21st century libraries and metadata interoperability in digital libraries, while maintaining the expressive power that was available to librarians when catalogues were physical artefacts.

0.0060520875 = product of:
  0.042364612 = sum of:
    0.042364612 = weight(_text_:digital in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042364612 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.0060520875 = product of:
  0.042364612 = sum of:
    0.042364612 = weight(_text_:digital in 2992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042364612 = score(doc=2992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2992)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Cataloging procedures have evolved in many academic research libraries over the past 10 years. Some predicted trends--outsourcing, original cataloging by paraprofessionals, more digital material--have been borne out. Others, such as a decline in the amount of material to catalog or in the number of professional catalogers, have not. Changes have been mostly procedural and have not affected the catalog itself. Recently, however, the emergence of powerful Internet search engines has allowed researchers to bypass the catalog. This has led some to question the wisdom of continuing it and others to vigorously defended current practice. In 2005-2007 this debate became especially heated, but a consensus appears to be emerging that although the character of the professional cataloger's job will continue to evolve over the next 5 to 10 years there will not be a revolution. The cataloger's basic skills will still be needed and the fundamental nature of cataloging will remain much as we know it.

0.0057059624 = product of:
  0.039941736 = sum of:
    0.039941736 = weight(_text_:digital in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039941736 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16201277 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.005311793 = product of:
  0.03718255 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 1009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=1009,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 1009, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1009)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: Canadian journal of information and library science 1993, no. April, S.81-82 (D. Mattison); Library review 42(1993) S.48-49 (D. Anderson); Australian academic and research libraries 1993, no. March, S.55-56 (J.S. Goodell); Library resources and technical services 1993, no.1, S.102 (R.P. Holley); Knowledge organization 20(1993) no.4, S.231-232 (P.A. Cochrane); Information processing and management 33(1997) no.4, S.573-575 (C.R. Hildreth)

0.005311793 = product of:
  0.03718255 = sum of:
    0.03718255 = weight(_text_:processing in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03718255 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662677 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04107254 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.

0.004769796 = product of:
  0.03338857 = sum of:
    0.03338857 = product of:
      0.06677714 = sum of:
        0.06677714 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06677714 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14382903 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04107254 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, 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=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.004769796 = product of:
  0.03338857 = sum of:
    0.03338857 = product of:
      0.06677714 = sum of:
        0.06677714 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06677714 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14382903 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04107254 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, 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=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.004769796 = product of:
  0.03338857 = sum of:
    0.03338857 = product of:
      0.06677714 = sum of:
        0.06677714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06677714 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14382903 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04107254 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, 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=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)