Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.020141546 = product of:
  0.08056618 = sum of:
    0.08056618 = weight(_text_:social in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056618 = score(doc=531,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 531, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=531)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

KoT (Kinds of Tags) is an ongoing joint collaborative research effort with many participants worldwide, including the University of Minho, UKOLN, the University of Bologna, the Université Libre de Bruxelles and La Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. It is focused on the analysis of tags that are in common use in the practice of social tagging, with the aim of discovering how easily tags can be 'normalised' for interoperability with standard metadata environments such as the DC Metadata Terms.

Theme

Social tagging

0.018198047 = product of:
  0.07279219 = sum of:
    0.07279219 = weight(_text_:social in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07279219 = score(doc=533,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.39405724 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?

Theme

Social tagging

0.01592329 = product of:
  0.06369316 = sum of:
    0.06369316 = weight(_text_:social in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06369316 = score(doc=542,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.34480008 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 2004, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative at the GESIS Social Science Information Centre in Bonn (GESIS-IZ), which will find its conclusion this year. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'crossconcordances' between major controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. Cross-concordances are intellectually (manually) created crosswalks that determine equivalence, hierarchy, and association relations between terms from two controlled vocabularies. Most vocabularies have been related bilaterally, that is, there is a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary A to vocabulary B as well as a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary B to vocabulary A (bilateral relations are not necessarily symmetrical). Till August 2007, 24 controlled vocabularies from 11 disciplines will be connected with vocabulary sizes ranging from 2,000 - 17,000 terms per vocabulary. To date more than 260,000 relations are generated. A database including all vocabularies and cross-concordances was built and a 'heterogeneity service' developed, a web service, which makes the cross-concordances available for other applications. Many cross-concordances are already implemented and utilized for the German Social Science Information Portal Sowiport (www.sowiport.de), which searches bibliographical and other information resources (incl. 13 databases with 10 different vocabularies and ca. 2.5 million references).
In the final phase of the project, a major evaluation effort is under way to test and measure the effectiveness of the vocabulary mappings in an information system environment. Actual user queries are tested in a distributed search environment, where several bibliographic databases with different controlled vocabularies are searched at the same time. Three query variations are compared to each other: a free-text search without focusing on using the controlled vocabulary or terminology mapping; a controlled vocabulary search, where terms from one vocabulary (a 'home' vocabulary thought to be familiar to the user of a particular database) are used to search all databases; and finally, a search, where controlled vocabulary terms are translated into the terms of the respective controlled vocabulary of the database. For evaluation purposes, types of cross-concordances are distinguished between intradisciplinary vocabularies (vocabularies within the social sciences) and interdisciplinary vocabularies (social sciences to other disciplines as well as other combinations). Simultaneously, an extensive quantitative analysis is conducted aimed at finding patterns in terminology mappings that can explain trends in the effectiveness of terminology mappings, particularly looking at overlapping terms, types of determined relations (equivalence, hierarchy etc.), size of participating vocabularies, etc. This project is the largest terminology mapping effort in Germany. The number and variety of controlled vocabularies targeted provide an optimal basis for insights and further research opportunities. To our knowledge, terminology mapping efforts have rarely been evaluated with stringent qualitative and quantitative measures. This research should contribute in this area. For the NKOS workshop, we plan to present an overview of the project and participating vocabularies, an introduction to the heterogeneity service and its application as well as some of the results and findings of the evaluation, which will be concluded in August.

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 2323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=2323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative, which found its conclusion in 2007. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'cross-concordances' between controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. 64 crosswalks with more than 500,000 relations were established. In the final phase of the project, a major evaluation effort to test and measure the effectiveness of the vocabulary mappings in an information system environment was conducted. The paper reports on the cross-concordance work and evaluation results.

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=989,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 989, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=989)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Crosswalks between different vocabularies are an indispensable prerequisite for integrated and high quality search scenarios in distributed data environments. Offered through the web and linked with each other they act as a central link so that users can move back and forth between different data sources available online. In the past, crosswalks between different thesauri have primarily been developed manually. In the long run the intellectual updating of such crosswalks requires huge personnel expenses. Therefore, an integration of automatic matching procedures, as for example Ontology Matching Tools, seems an obvious need. On the basis of computer generated correspondences between the Thesaurus for Economics (STW) and the Thesaurus for the Social Sciences (TheSoz) our contribution will explore cross-border approaches between IT-assisted tools and procedures on the one hand and external quality measurements via domain experts on the other hand. The techniques that emerge enable semi-automatically performed vocabulary crosswalks.

0.011509455 = product of:
  0.04603782 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 3109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=3109,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 3109, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3109)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This proposal presents the methodology of indexing with images suggested by De Brito and Caribé (2015). The imagetic model is used as a compatible mechanism with FRSAD for a global information share and use of subject data, both within the library sector and beyond. The conceptual model of imagetic indexing shows how images are related to topics and 'key-images' are interpreted as nomens to implement the FRSAD model. Indexing with images consists of using images instead of key-words or descriptors, to represent and organize information. Implementing the imaged navigation in OPACs denotes multiple advantages derived from this rethinking the OPAC anew, since we are looking forward to sharing concepts within the subject authority data. Images, carrying linguistic objects, permeate inter-social and cultural concepts. In practice it includes translated metadata, symmetrical multilingual thesaurus, or any traditional indexing tools. iOPAC embodies efforts focused on conceptual levels as expected from librarians. Imaged interfaces are more intuitive since users do not need specific training for information retrieval, offering easier comprehension of indexing codes, larger conceptual portability of descriptors (as images), and a better interoperability between discourse codes and indexing competences affecting positively social and cultural interoperability. The imagetic methodology deploys R&D fields for more suitable interfaces taking into consideration users with specific needs such as deafness and illiteracy. This methodology arouse questions about the paradigms of the primacy of orality in information systems and pave the way to a legitimacy of multiple perspectives in document indexing by suggesting a more universal communication system based on images. Interdisciplinarity in neurosciences, linguistics and information sciences would be desirable competencies for further investigations about he nature of cognitive processes in information organization and classification while developing assistive KOS for individuals with communication problems, such autism and deafness.

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.009414612 = product of:
  0.03765845 = sum of:
    0.03765845 = product of:
      0.0753169 = sum of:
        0.0753169 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0753169 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.007845511 = product of:
  0.031382043 = sum of:
    0.031382043 = product of:
      0.062764086 = sum of:
        0.062764086 = weight(_text_:22 in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062764086 = score(doc=1287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=535,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 535, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, the international standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri respectively dated 1986 and 1985, are very much in need of revision. A proposal to revise them was recently approved by the relevant subcommittee, ISO TC46/SC9. The work will be based on BS 8723, a five part standard of which Parts 1 and 2 were published in 2005, Parts 3 and 4 are scheduled for publication in 2007, and Part 5 is still in draft. This subsession will address aspects of the whole revision project. It is conceived as a panel session starting with a brief overview from the project leader. Then there are three presentations of 15 minutes, plus 5 minutes each for specific questions. At the end we have 20 minutes for questions to any or all of the panel, and discussion of issues from the workshop participants.

0.0071211113 = product of:
  0.028484445 = sum of:
    0.028484445 = weight(_text_:social in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028484445 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.15419927 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

References [1] http:// www.theeuropeanlibrary.org [2] http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl [3] http://macs.cenl.org [4] Day, M., Koch, T., Neuroth, H.: Searching and browsing multiple subject gateways in the Renardus service. In Proceedings of the RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Amsterdam , 2005. [5] http://stitch.cs.vu.nl [6] http://mandragore.bnf.fr [7] http://www.iconclass.nl [8] www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/ 1 The Semantic Web vision supposes sharing data using different conceptualizations (ontologies), and therefore implies to tackle the semantic interoperability problem

0.0066571366 = product of:
  0.026628546 = sum of:
    0.026628546 = product of:
      0.053257093 = sum of:
        0.053257093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053257093 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=2205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 2205, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of Linked Data has been an emerging theme within the computing and digital heritage areas in recent years. The growth and scale of Linked Data has underlined the need for greater commonality in concept referencing, to avoid local redefinition and duplication of reference resources. Achieving domain-wide agreement on common vocabularies would be an unreasonable expectation; however, datasets often already have local vocabulary resources defined, and so the prospects for large-scale interoperability can be substantially improved by creating alignment links from these local vocabularies out to common external reference resources. The ARIADNE project is undertaking large-scale integration of archaeology dataset metadata records, to create a cross-searchable research repository resource. Key to enabling this cross search will be the 'subject' metadata originating from multiple data providers, containing terms from multiple multilingual controlled vocabularies. This paper discusses various aspects of vocabulary mapping. Experience from the previous SENESCHAL project in the publication of controlled vocabularies as Linked Open Data is discussed, emphasizing the importance of unique URI identifiers for vocabulary concepts. There is a need to align legacy indexing data to the uniquely defined concepts and examples are discussed of SENESCHAL data alignment work. A case study for the ARIADNE project presents work on mapping between vocabularies, based on the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus as a central hub and employing an interactive vocabulary mapping tool developed for the project, which generates SKOS mapping relationships in JSON and other formats. The potential use of such vocabulary mappings to assist cross search over archaeological datasets from different countries is illustrated in a pilot experiment. The results demonstrate the enhanced opportunities for interoperability and cross searching that the approach offers.

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7411, 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=7411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 541, 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=541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:46

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2227, 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=2227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 540, 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=540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:27

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, 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=759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=4183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4183, 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=4183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 10:16:32

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, 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=4820)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3.12.2016 18:39:22