Search (59 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0016616598 = product of:
  0.0033233196 = sum of:
    0.0033233196 = product of:
      0.006646639 = sum of:
        0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006646639 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0016616598 = product of:
  0.0033233196 = sum of:
    0.0033233196 = product of:
      0.006646639 = sum of:
        0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 4159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006646639 = score(doc=4159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4159, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4159)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0016616598 = product of:
  0.0033233196 = sum of:
    0.0033233196 = product of:
      0.006646639 = sum of:
        0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006646639 = score(doc=4160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0015666279 = product of:
  0.0031332558 = sum of:
    0.0031332558 = product of:
      0.0062665115 = sum of:
        0.0062665115 = weight(_text_:a in 4804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062665115 = score(doc=4804,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4804, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0015666279 = product of:
  0.0031332558 = sum of:
    0.0031332558 = product of:
      0.0062665115 = sum of:
        0.0062665115 = weight(_text_:a in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062665115 = score(doc=5518,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0015481601 = product of:
  0.0030963202 = sum of:
    0.0030963202 = product of:
      0.0061926404 = sum of:
        0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061926404 = score(doc=4493,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Classification is an important process in making sense of the world, and has a pronounced social dimension. This paper aims to compare folksonomy, a new social classification system currently being developed on the web, with conventional taxonomy in the light of theoretical sociological and anthropological approaches. The co-existence of these two types of classification system raises the questions: Will and should taxonomies be hybridized with folksonomies? What can each of these systems contribute to information-searching processes, and how can the sociology of knowledge provide an answer to these questions? This paper aims also to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - This paper is situated at the meeting point of the sociology of knowledge, epistemology and information science and aims at examining systems of classification in the light of both classical theory and current late-modern sociological and anthropological approaches. Findings - Using theoretical approaches current in the sociology of science and knowledge, the paper envisages two divergent possible outcomes. Originality/value - While concentrating on classifications systems, this paper addresses the more general social issue of what we know and how it is known. The concept of hybrid knowledge is suggested in order to illuminate the epistemological basis of late-modern knowledge being constructed by hybridizing contradictory modern knowledge categories, such as the subjective with the objective and the social with the natural. Integrating tree-like taxonomies with folksonomies or, in other words, generating a naturalized structural order of objective relations with social, subjective classification systems, can create a vast range of hybrid knowledge.

Type

a

0.0015481601 = product of:
  0.0030963202 = sum of:
    0.0030963202 = product of:
      0.0061926404 = sum of:
        0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061926404 = score(doc=4850,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Faceted classification is based on the core ideas that there are kinds or categories of concepts, and that compound, or non-elemental, concepts, which are ubiquitous in classification and subject annotation, are to be identified as being constructions of concepts of the different kinds. The categories of concepts are facets, and the individual concepts, which are instances of those facets, are foci. Usually, there are constraints on how the foci can be combined into the compound concepts. What is standard is that any combination of foci is permitted from kind-to-kind across facets, but that the foci within a facet are restricted in their use by virtue of being dependent on each other, either by being exclusive of each other or by bearing some kind of hierarchical relationship to each other. Thus faceted classification is typically considered to be a synthetic classification consisting of orthogonal facets which themselves are composed individually either of exclusive foci or of a hierarchy of foci. This paper addresses in particular this second exclusive-or-hierarchical foci condition. It evaluates the arguments for the condition and finds them not conclusive. It suggests that wider synthetic constructions should be allowed on foci within a facet.

Type

a

0.0015481601 = product of:
  0.0030963202 = sum of:
    0.0030963202 = product of:
      0.0061926404 = sum of:
        0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061926404 = score(doc=423,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Library of Congress is a federal institution that occupies a critical space where medical, social science, political, literary, and other discourses are collected, arranged, and disseminated to Congress and the public. LC plays a vital part in discipline creation and maintenance, as it actively reproduces specific discourses, while silencing others, such as those from the humanities, social sciences, and the general public. Alternatively, social tagging seems to disregard conventions of disciplinarity and allows much more diversity of representations. Tagging may provide important insight for organizing materials in research libraries, as choices between single disciplines are no longer necessary and voices from various fields and audiences can name resources using their own terms, whether they prefer medical/technical jargon or everyday words. As the academy moves more toward interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary studies and aims to find the intersections across political, social, scientific, and cultural phenomena, the implications and effects of library organization based on classes and subjects needs to be interrogated.

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_i.pdf.

Type

a

0.0015481601 = product of:
  0.0030963202 = sum of:
    0.0030963202 = product of:
      0.0061926404 = sum of:
        0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061926404 = score(doc=789,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

Type

a

0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=323,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 323, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowledge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item-what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these dimensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject facets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions- phenomena, perspective, carrier-is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of headings.

Type

a

0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=3183,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.

Type

a

0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 4302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=4302,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4302, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previously, the main problem of information extraction was to gather enough data. Today, the challenge is not to collect data but to interpret and represent them in order to deduce information. Ontologies are considered suitable solutions for organizing information. The classic methods for ontology construction from textual documents rely on natural language analysis and are generally based on statistical or linguistic approaches. However, these approaches do not consider the document structure which provides additional knowledge. In fact, the structural organization of documents also conveys meaning. In this context, new approaches focus on document structure analysis to extract knowledge. This paper describes a methodology for ontology construction from web data and especially from Wikipedia articles. It focuses mainly on document structure in order to extract the main concepts and their relations. The proposed methods extract not only taxonomic and non-taxonomic relations but also give the labels describing non-taxonomic relations. The extraction of non-taxonomic relations is established by analyzing the titles hierarchy in each document. A pattern matching is also applied in order to extract known semantic relations. We propose also to apply a refinement to the extracted relations in order to keep only those that are relevant. The refinement process is performed by applying the transitive property, checking the nature of the relations and analyzing taxonomic relations having inverted arguments. Experiments have been performed on French Wikipedia articles related to the medical field. Ontology evaluation is performed by comparing it to gold standards.

Type

a

0.0011991997 = product of:
  0.0023983994 = sum of:
    0.0023983994 = product of:
      0.004796799 = sum of:
        0.004796799 = weight(_text_:a in 4845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004796799 = score(doc=4845,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4845, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper identifies and discusses features of the classification of mammals that are relevant to the bibliographic classification of the subject. The tendency of zoological classifications to change, the differing sizes of groups of species, the use zoologists make of groupings other than taxa, and the links in zoology between classification and nomenclature, are identified as key themes the bibliographic classificationist needs to be aware of. The impact of cladistics, a novel classificatory method and philosophy adopted by zoologists in the last few decades, is identified as the defining feature of the current, rather turbulent, state of zoological classification. However because zoologists still employ some non-cladistic classifications, because cladistic classifications are in some way unsuited to optimal information storage and retrieval, and because some of their consequences for zoological classification are as yet unknown, bibliographic classifications cannot be modelled entirely on them.

Content

This paper is based on a thesis of the same title, completed as part of an MA in Library and Information Studies at University College London in 2009, and available at http://62.32.98.6/elibsql2uk_Z10300UK_Documents/Catalogued_PDFs/ Some_issues_in_the_classification_of_zoology.PDF. Thanks are due to Vanda Broughton, who supervised the MA thesis; and to Diane Tough of the Natural History Museum, London and Ann Sylph of the Zoological Society of London, who both provided valuable insights into the classification of zoological literature.

Type

a

0.0011991997 = product of:
  0.0023983994 = sum of:
    0.0023983994 = product of:
      0.004796799 = sum of:
        0.004796799 = weight(_text_:a in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004796799 = score(doc=2720,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.

Type

a

0.0011077732 = product of:
  0.0022155463 = sum of:
    0.0022155463 = product of:
      0.0044310926 = sum of:
        0.0044310926 = weight(_text_:a in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0044310926 = score(doc=3610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011077732 = product of:
  0.0022155463 = sum of:
    0.0022155463 = product of:
      0.0044310926 = sum of:
        0.0044310926 = weight(_text_:a in 4715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0044310926 = score(doc=4715,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4715, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4715)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

9.791424E-4 = product of:
  0.0019582848 = sum of:
    0.0019582848 = product of:
      0.0039165695 = sum of:
        0.0039165695 = weight(_text_:a in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039165695 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Type

a

9.693015E-4 = product of:
  0.001938603 = sum of:
    0.001938603 = product of:
      0.003877206 = sum of:
        0.003877206 = weight(_text_:a in 3617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003877206 = score(doc=3617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.308299E-4 = product of:
  0.0016616598 = sum of:
    0.0016616598 = product of:
      0.0033233196 = sum of:
        0.0033233196 = weight(_text_:a in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033233196 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a