-
Gnoli, C.: Classificazione a facette (2004)
0.06
0.060467124 = product of:
0.12093425 = sum of:
0.12093425 = product of:
0.18140137 = sum of:
0.09878167 = weight(_text_:i in 3746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09878167 = score(doc=3746,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 3746, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3746)
0.0826197 = weight(_text_:c in 3746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0826197 = score(doc=3746,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.5335526 = fieldWeight in 3746, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3746)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Language
- i
-
Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004)
0.03
0.032916233 = product of:
0.065832466 = sum of:
0.065832466 = product of:
0.09874869 = sum of:
0.07809377 = weight(_text_:i in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07809377 = score(doc=3536,freq=20.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.46122587 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.020654924 = weight(_text_:c in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020654924 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.
-
Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001)
0.03
0.02591448 = product of:
0.05182896 = sum of:
0.05182896 = product of:
0.07774344 = sum of:
0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042335 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035408445 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.
-
Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004)
0.02
0.019972598 = product of:
0.039945196 = sum of:
0.039945196 = product of:
0.059917793 = sum of:
0.029507035 = weight(_text_:c in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029507035 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.030410757 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030410757 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.19-22
-
Ereshefsky, M.: ¬The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy : a philosophical study of biological taxonomy (2007)
0.02
0.01727632 = product of:
0.03455264 = sum of:
0.03455264 = product of:
0.05182896 = sum of:
0.028223332 = weight(_text_:i in 2493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028223332 = score(doc=2493,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 2493, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2493)
0.02360563 = weight(_text_:c in 2493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02360563 = score(doc=2493,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 2493, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2493)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Biographed
- Linné, C.
- Content
- Part I: The historical turn 1. The philosophy of classification 2. A primer of biological taxonomy 3. History and classification Part II: The multiplicity of nature 4. Species pluralism 5. How to be a discerning pluralist Part III: Hierarchies and nomenclature 6. The evolution of the Linnaean hierarchy 7. Post-Linnaean taxonomy 8. The future of biological nomenclature
-
Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006)
0.01
0.008109535 = product of:
0.01621907 = sum of:
0.01621907 = product of:
0.04865721 = sum of:
0.04865721 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04865721 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 27. 5.2007 22:19:35
-
Zins, C.: Knowledge organization : an epistemological perspective (2004)
0.01
0.007868543 = product of:
0.015737087 = sum of:
0.015737087 = product of:
0.04721126 = sum of:
0.04721126 = weight(_text_:c in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04721126 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Denton, W.: Putting facets on the Web : an annotated bibliography (2003)
0.01
0.0072013303 = product of:
0.014402661 = sum of:
0.014402661 = product of:
0.04320798 = sum of:
0.04320798 = weight(_text_:i in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04320798 = score(doc=2467,freq=12.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.25518858 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.
-
Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001)
0.01
0.007095843 = product of:
0.014191686 = sum of:
0.014191686 = product of:
0.042575058 = sum of:
0.042575058 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042575058 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Giunchiglia, F.; Zaihrayeu, I.; Farazi, F.: Converting classifications into OWL ontologies (2009)
0.01
0.0070558335 = product of:
0.014111667 = sum of:
0.014111667 = product of:
0.042335 = sum of:
0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042335 = score(doc=4690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004)
0.01
0.0069548762 = product of:
0.0139097525 = sum of:
0.0139097525 = product of:
0.041729257 = sum of:
0.041729257 = weight(_text_:c in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041729257 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.
-
Gnoli, C.: ¬The meaning of facets in non-disciplinary classifications (2006)
0.01
0.0069548762 = product of:
0.0139097525 = sum of:
0.0139097525 = product of:
0.041729257 = sum of:
0.041729257 = weight(_text_:c in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041729257 = score(doc=2291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
-
Zhonghong, W.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.: Potential and prospects of taxonomies for content organization (2006)
0.01
0.006884975 = product of:
0.01376995 = sum of:
0.01376995 = product of:
0.04130985 = sum of:
0.04130985 = weight(_text_:c in 169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04130985 = score(doc=169,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 169, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=169)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Beghtol, C.: ¬The facet concept as a universal principle of subdivision (2006)
0.01
0.006884975 = product of:
0.01376995 = sum of:
0.01376995 = product of:
0.04130985 = sum of:
0.04130985 = weight(_text_:c in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04130985 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007)
0.01
0.006082151 = product of:
0.012164302 = sum of:
0.012164302 = product of:
0.036492907 = sum of:
0.036492907 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036492907 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22.12.2007 17:22:31
-
Gnoli, C.: Naturalism vs pragmatism in knowledge organization (2004)
0.01
0.0059014075 = product of:
0.011802815 = sum of:
0.011802815 = product of:
0.035408445 = sum of:
0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035408445 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Gnoli, C.; Poli, R.: Levels of reality and levels of representation (2004)
0.01
0.0059014075 = product of:
0.011802815 = sum of:
0.011802815 = product of:
0.035408445 = sum of:
0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035408445 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Gnoli, C.: Phylogenetic classification (2006)
0.01
0.0059014075 = product of:
0.011802815 = sum of:
0.011802815 = product of:
0.035408445 = sum of:
0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035408445 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Gnoli, C.; Mei, H.: Freely faceted classification for Web-based information retrieval (2006)
0.01
0.0059014075 = product of:
0.011802815 = sum of:
0.011802815 = product of:
0.035408445 = sum of:
0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035408445 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery : relationships between "professional" and "naïve" classifications (2003)
0.00
0.0049178395 = product of:
0.009835679 = sum of:
0.009835679 = product of:
0.029507035 = sum of:
0.029507035 = weight(_text_:c in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029507035 = score(doc=3021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
