Search (41 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0017684372 = product of:
  0.022989683 = sum of:
    0.022989683 = product of:
      0.06896905 = sum of:
        0.06896905 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06896905 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

0.0017684372 = product of:
  0.022989683 = sum of:
    0.022989683 = product of:
      0.06896905 = sum of:
        0.06896905 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06896905 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, 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=3962)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

0.0017684372 = product of:
  0.022989683 = sum of:
    0.022989683 = product of:
      0.06896905 = sum of:
        0.06896905 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06896905 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, 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=4368)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.0017684372 = product of:
  0.022989683 = sum of:
    0.022989683 = product of:
      0.06896905 = sum of:
        0.06896905 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06896905 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.0017279141 = product of:
  0.022462882 = sum of:
    0.022462882 = weight(_text_:web in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022462882 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Abstract

The literature of the evaluation of Internet search engines is reviewed. Although there have been many studies, there has been little consistency in the way such studies have been carried out. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that recall is virtually impossible to calculate in the fast changing Internet environment, and therefore the traditional Cranfield type of evaluation is not usually possible. A variety of alternative evaluation methods has been suggested to overcome this difficulty. The authors recommend that a standardised set of tools is developed for the evaluation of web search engines so that, in future, comparisons can be made between search engines more effectively, and that variations in performance of any given search engine over time can be tracked. The paper itself does not provide such a standard set of tools, but it investigates the issues and makes preliminary recommendations of the types of tools needed

0.0017279141 = product of:
  0.022462882 = sum of:
    0.022462882 = weight(_text_:web in 1718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022462882 = score(doc=1718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1718)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Abstract

This review describes experimental designs (users, search tasks, measures, etc.) used by 31 controlled user studies of information visualization (IV) tools for textual information retrieval (IR) and a meta-analysis of the reported statistical effects. Comparable experimental designs allow research designers to compare their results with other reports, and support the development of experimentally verified design guidelines concerning which IV techniques are better suited to which types of IR tasks. The studies generally use a within-subject design with 15 or more undergraduate students performing browsing to known-item tasks on sets of at least 1,000 full-text articles or Web pages on topics of general interest/news. Results of the meta-analysis (N = 8) showed no significant effects of the IV tool as compared with a text-only equivalent, but the set shows great variability suggesting an inadequate basis of comparison. Experimental design recommendations are provided which would support comparison of existing IV tools for IR usability testing.

0.0016948433 = product of:
  0.022032961 = sum of:
    0.022032961 = weight(_text_:world in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022032961 = score(doc=5079,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.122288436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.18017207 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

0.0015979134 = product of:
  0.020772874 = sum of:
    0.020772874 = weight(_text_:world in 4280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020772874 = score(doc=4280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.122288436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 4280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4280)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Abstract

What is an electronic record, how should it best be preserved and made available, and to what extent do traditional, paradigmatic archival precepts such as provenance, original order, and archival custody hold when managing it? Over more than four decades of work in the area of electronic records (formerly known as machine-readable records), theorists and researchers have offered answers to these questions-or at least devised approaches for trying to answer them. However, a set of fundamental questions about the nature of the record and the applicability of traditional archival theory still confronts researchers seeking to advance knowledge and development in this increasingly active, but contested, area of research. For example, which characteristics differentiate a record from other types of information objects (such as publications or raw research data)? Are these characteristics consistently present regardless of the medium of the record? Does the record always have to have a tangible form? How does the record manifest itself within different technological and procedural contexts, and in particular, how do we determine the parameters of electronic records created in relational, distributed, or dynamic environments that bear little resemblance an the surface to traditional paper-based environments? At the heart of electronic records research lies a dual concern with the nature of the record as a specific type of information object and the nature of legal and historical evidence in a digital world. Electronic records research is relevant to the agendas of many communities in addition to that of archivists. Its emphasis an accountability and an establishing trust in records, for example, addresses concerns that are central to both digital government and e-commerce. Research relating to electronic records is still relatively homogeneous in terms of scope, in that most major research initiatives have addressed various combinations of the following: theory building in terms of identifying the nature of the electronic record, developing alternative conceptual models, establishing the determinants of reliability and authenticity in active and preserved electronic records, identifying functional and metadata requirements for record keeping, developing and testing preservation

0.0014964177 = product of:
  0.019453429 = sum of:
    0.019453429 = weight(_text_:web in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019453429 = score(doc=1270,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.18735787 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

0.0011519426 = product of:
  0.014975254 = sum of:
    0.014975254 = weight(_text_:web in 4299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014975254 = score(doc=4299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 4299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4299)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Abstract

The emergence of digital libraries (DLs), at the interface of library and information science with computer and communication technologies, helped to expand significantly the literature in all of these areas during the late 1990s. The pace of development is reflected by the number of special issues of major journals in information science and computer science, and the increasing number of workshops and conferences an digital libraries. For example, starting in 1995, the Communications of the ACM has devoted three special issues to the topic (Fox, Akscyn, Furuta, & Leggett, 1995; Fox & Marchionini, 1998, 2001). The Journal of the American Society for Information Science devoted two issues to digital libraries (H. Chen, 2000; Fox & Lunin, 1993); Information Processing & Management and the Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation each had one special issue (Chen & Fox, 1996; Marchionini & Fox, 1999). The domain of digital libraries, though still evolving, has matured over the last decade, as demonstrated by coverage through D-Lib (http://www.dlib.org), the International Journal an Digital Libraries (http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00799), and two overview works (W Y Arms, 2000; Lesk, 1997; both of which have also served as textbooks). Sun Microsystems published a small book to guide those planning a digital library (Noerr, 2000), and IBM has been developing commercial products for digital libraries since 1994 (IBM, 2000). A number of Web sites have extensive sets of pointers to information an DLs (D-Lib Forum, 2001; Fox, 1998a; Habing, 1998; Hein, 2000; Schwartz, 2001a, 2001b). Further, the field has attracted the attention of diverse academics, research groups, and practitionersmany of whom have attended tutorials, workshops, or conferences, e.g., the Joint Conference an Digital Libraries, which is a sequel to a separate series run by ACM and IEEE-CS. Therefore, it is timely that ARIST publishes this first review focusing specifically an digital libraries. There has been no ARIST chapter to date directly dealing with the area of DLs, though some related domains have been covered-particularly: information retrieval, user interfaces (Marchionini & Komlodi, 1998), social informatics of DLs (Bishop & Star, 1996), and scholarly communication (see Borgman and Furner's chapter in this volume). This chapter provides an overview of the diverse aspects and dimensions of DL research, practice, and literature, identifying trends and delineating research directions.

8.9224486E-4 = product of:
  0.011599183 = sum of:
    0.011599183 = product of:
      0.03479755 = sum of:
        0.03479755 = weight(_text_:29 in 4263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03479755 = score(doc=4263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11191709 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4263)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

23.10.2005 18:29:03

8.842186E-4 = product of:
  0.011494841 = sum of:
    0.011494841 = product of:
      0.034484524 = sum of:
        0.034484524 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034484524 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

8.842186E-4 = product of:
  0.011494841 = sum of:
    0.011494841 = product of:
      0.034484524 = sum of:
        0.034484524 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034484524 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

8.842186E-4 = product of:
  0.011494841 = sum of:
    0.011494841 = product of:
      0.034484524 = sum of:
        0.034484524 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034484524 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

7.7369134E-4 = product of:
  0.010057987 = sum of:
    0.010057987 = product of:
      0.03017396 = sum of:
        0.03017396 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03017396 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

6.691837E-4 = product of:
  0.008699387 = sum of:
    0.008699387 = product of:
      0.026098162 = sum of:
        0.026098162 = weight(_text_:29 in 4272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026098162 = score(doc=4272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11191709 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4272, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4272)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

23.10.2005 18:29:25

6.6316396E-4 = product of:
  0.008621131 = sum of:
    0.008621131 = product of:
      0.025863392 = sum of:
        0.025863392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025863392 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2548, 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=2548)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

5.5765314E-4 = product of:
  0.0072494904 = sum of:
    0.0072494904 = product of:
      0.02174847 = sum of:
        0.02174847 = weight(_text_:29 in 4274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02174847 = score(doc=4274,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11191709 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4274, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4274)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

23.10.2005 18:29:40

5.5765314E-4 = product of:
  0.0072494904 = sum of:
    0.0072494904 = product of:
      0.02174847 = sum of:
        0.02174847 = weight(_text_:29 in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02174847 = score(doc=5738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11191709 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

29. 9.2008 19:07:48

5.526367E-4 = product of:
  0.0071842764 = sum of:
    0.0071842764 = product of:
      0.02155283 = sum of:
        0.02155283 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02155283 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(1/13)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22