Search (209 results, page 1 of 11)

0.07266897 = product of:
  0.14533794 = sum of:
    0.14533794 = sum of:
      0.124411434 = weight(_text_:book in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.124411434 = score(doc=1184,freq=28.0), product of:
          0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051484983 = queryNorm
          0.5474381 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
              28.0 = termFreq=28.0
            4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.020926513 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020926513 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051484983 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.
This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

Object

Google book search

0.068143174 = product of:
  0.13628635 = sum of:
    0.13628635 = product of:
      0.408859 = sum of:
        0.408859 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.408859 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43649027 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.05451454 = product of:
  0.10902908 = sum of:
    0.10902908 = product of:
      0.32708722 = sum of:
        0.32708722 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32708722 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43649027 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.045299746 = product of:
  0.09059949 = sum of:
    0.09059949 = sum of:
      0.06269747 = weight(_text_:book in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06269747 = score(doc=3608,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051484983 = queryNorm
          0.27588287 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.027902018 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027902018 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051484983 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

0.03918592 = product of:
  0.07837184 = sum of:
    0.07837184 = product of:
      0.15674368 = sum of:
        0.15674368 = weight(_text_:book in 8747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15674368 = score(doc=8747,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.68970716 = fieldWeight in 8747, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Electronic edition of van Herwijnen's book 'Practical SGML'

Imprint

Providence, RI : Electronic Book Technologies

0.03879208 = product of:
  0.07758416 = sum of:
    0.07758416 = product of:
      0.15516832 = sum of:
        0.15516832 = weight(_text_:book in 6252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15516832 = score(doc=6252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.68277526 = fieldWeight in 6252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

David Weinberger's introduction is an excerpt from his recently published book Everything Is Miscellaneous.

0.03717503 = product of:
  0.07435006 = sum of:
    0.07435006 = product of:
      0.14870012 = sum of:
        0.14870012 = weight(_text_:book in 2116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14870012 = score(doc=2116,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.6543137 = fieldWeight in 2116, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The library as place and service continues to be shaped by the legacy of the book. The book itself has evolved in recent years, with various technologies vying to become the next dominant book form. In this article, we discuss the design and development of our prototype software from Montana State University (MSU) Library for presenting books inside of web browsers. The article outlines the contextual background and technological potential for publishing traditional book content through the web using open standards. Our prototype demonstrates the application of HTML5, structured data with RDFa and Schema.org markup, linked data components using JSON-LD, and an API-driven data model. We examine how this open web model impacts discovery, reading analytics, eBook production, and machine-readability for libraries considering how to unite software development and publishing.

0.03611791 = product of:
  0.07223582 = sum of:
    0.07223582 = sum of:
      0.044333804 = weight(_text_:book in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044333804 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051484983 = queryNorm
          0.19507864 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.027902018 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027902018 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051484983 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dublin Core is often presented as a modern form of catalog card -- a set of elements (and now qualifiers) that describe resources in a complete package. Sometimes it is proposed as an exchange format for sharing records among multiple collections. The founding principle that "every element is optional and repeatable" reinforces the notion that a Dublin Core description is to be taken as a whole. This paper, in contrast, is based on a much different premise: Dublin Core is a language. More precisely, it is a small language for making a particular class of statements about resources. Like natural languages, it has a vocabulary of word-like terms, the two classes of which -- elements and qualifiers -- function within statements like nouns and adjectives; and it has a syntax for arranging elements and qualifiers into statements according to a simple pattern. Whenever tourists order a meal or ask directions in an unfamiliar language, considerate native speakers will spontaneously limit themselves to basic words and simple sentence patterns along the lines of "I am so-and-so" or "This is such-and-such". Linguists call this pidginization. In such situations, a small phrase book or translated menu can be most helpful. By analogy, today's Web has been called an Internet Commons where users and information providers from a wide range of scientific, commercial, and social domains present their information in a variety of incompatible data models and description languages. In this context, Dublin Core presents itself as a metadata pidgin for digital tourists who must find their way in this linguistically diverse landscape. Its vocabulary is small enough to learn quickly, and its basic pattern is easily grasped. It is well-suited to serve as an auxiliary language for digital libraries. This grammar starts by defining terms. It then follows a 200-year-old tradition of English grammar teaching by focusing on the structure of single statements. It concludes by looking at the growing dictionary of Dublin Core vocabulary terms -- its registry, and at how statements can be used to build the metadata equivalent of paragraphs and compositions -- the application profile.

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22

0.034071587 = product of:
  0.068143174 = sum of:
    0.068143174 = product of:
      0.2044295 = sum of:
        0.2044295 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2044295 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43649027 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.034071587 = product of:
  0.068143174 = sum of:
    0.068143174 = product of:
      0.2044295 = sum of:
        0.2044295 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2044295 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43649027 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.033250358 = product of:
  0.066500716 = sum of:
    0.066500716 = product of:
      0.13300143 = sum of:
        0.13300143 = weight(_text_:book in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13300143 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.58523595 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.033250358 = product of:
  0.066500716 = sum of:
    0.066500716 = product of:
      0.13300143 = sum of:
        0.13300143 = weight(_text_:book in 8986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13300143 = score(doc=8986,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.58523595 = fieldWeight in 8986, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

BEE-Book

0.033250358 = product of:
  0.066500716 = sum of:
    0.066500716 = product of:
      0.13300143 = sum of:
        0.13300143 = weight(_text_:book in 2540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13300143 = score(doc=2540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.58523595 = fieldWeight in 2540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Erste Ausgabe (auch als BEE Book gekennzeichnet)

0.033250358 = product of:
  0.066500716 = sum of:
    0.066500716 = product of:
      0.13300143 = sum of:
        0.13300143 = weight(_text_:book in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13300143 = score(doc=1323,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.58523595 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.

0.031348735 = product of:
  0.06269747 = sum of:
    0.06269747 = product of:
      0.12539494 = sum of:
        0.12539494 = weight(_text_:book in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12539494 = score(doc=4686,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.55176574 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https://www.1843magazine.com/data-graphic/what-the-numbers-say/how-long-is-the-perfect-book

0.027902018 = product of:
  0.055804037 = sum of:
    0.055804037 = product of:
      0.11160807 = sum of:
        0.11160807 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11160807 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, 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=5449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:26:34

0.027902018 = product of:
  0.055804037 = sum of:
    0.055804037 = product of:
      0.11160807 = sum of:
        0.11160807 = weight(_text_:22 in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11160807 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5837, 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=5837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.11.1996 13:22:37

0.027902018 = product of:
  0.055804037 = sum of:
    0.055804037 = product of:
      0.11160807 = sum of:
        0.11160807 = weight(_text_:22 in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11160807 = score(doc=4085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4085, 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=4085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7.11.1999 18:22:39

0.027708627 = product of:
  0.055417255 = sum of:
    0.055417255 = product of:
      0.11083451 = sum of:
        0.11083451 = weight(_text_:book in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11083451 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.4876966 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Compact electronic book

0.027708627 = product of:
  0.055417255 = sum of:
    0.055417255 = product of:
      0.11083451 = sum of:
        0.11083451 = weight(_text_:book in 1302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11083451 = score(doc=1302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051484983 = queryNorm
            0.4876966 = fieldWeight in 1302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)