Search (155 results, page 4 of 8)

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 5951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=5951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5951, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=5952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 5953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=5953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4569,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4569, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The results of this thesis are intended to support the information architect in designing a solution for improved search in a corporate environment. Specifically we have examined the type of search problems that require a domain model to enhance the search process. There are several approaches to modeling a domain. We have considered 3 different types of domain modeling schemes; taxonomy, thesaurus and ontology. The intention is to support the information architect in making an informed choice between one or more of these schemes. In our opinion the main criteria for this choice are the modeling characteristics of a scheme and the suitability for application in the search process. The second chapter is a discussion of modeling characteristics of each scheme, followed by a comparison between them. This should give an information architect an idea of which aspects of a domain can be modeled with each scheme. What is missing here is an indication of the effort required to model a domain with each scheme. There are too many factors that influence the amount of required effort, ranging from measurable factors like domain size and resource characteristics to cultural matters such as the willingness to share knowledge and the existence of a project champion in the team to keep the project running. The third chapter shows what role domain models can play in each part of the search process. This gives an idea of the problems that domain models can solve. We have split the search process into individual parts to show that domain models can be applied very differently in the process. The fourth chapter makes recommendations about the suitability of each individualdomain modeling scheme for improving search. Each scheme has particular characteristics that make it especially suitable for a domain or a search problem. In the appendix each case study is described in detail. These descriptions are intended to serve as a benchmark. The current problem of the enterprise can be compared to those described to see which case study is most similar, which solution was chosen, which problems arose and how they were dealt with. An important issue that we have not touched upon in this thesis is that of maintenance. The real problems of a domain model are revealed when it is applied in a search system and its deficits and wrong assumptions become clear. Adaptation and maintenance are always required. Unfortunately we have not been able to glean sufficient information about maintenance issues from our case studies to draw any meaningful conclusions.

0.0025313715 = product of:
  0.005062743 = sum of:
    0.005062743 = product of:
      0.010125486 = sum of:
        0.010125486 = weight(_text_:a in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010125486 = score(doc=5985,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This research explores, using a Grounded Theory approach, the question of how a particular group of undergraduate university students differentiates the values of retrieved information in a contemporary research process. Specifically it attempts to isolate and label those specific techniques, processes, formulae-both objective and subjective-that the students use to identify, prioritize, and successfully incorporate the most useful and valuable information into their research project. The research reviews the relevant literature covering the areas of: epistemology, knowledge acquisition, and cognitive learning theory; early relevance research; the movement from relevance models to information seeking in context; and the proximate recent research. A research methodology is articulated using a Grounded Theory approach, and the research process and research participants are fully explained and described. The findings of the research are set forth using three Thematic Sets- Traditional Relevance Measures; Structural Frames; and Metaphors: General and Ecological-using the actual discourse of the study participants, and a theoretical construct is advanced. Based on that construct, it can be theorized that identification and analysis of the metaphorical language that the particular students in this study used, both by way of general and ecological metaphors-their stories-about how they found, handled, and evaluated information, can be a very useful tool in understanding how the students identified, prioritized, and successfully incorporated the most useful and relevant information into their research projects. It also is argued that this type of metaphorical analysis could be useful in providing a bridging mechanism for a broader understanding of the relationships between traditional user relevance studies and the concepts of frame theory and sense-making. Finally, a corollary to Whitmire's original epistemological hypothesis is posited: Students who were more adept at using metaphors-either general or ecological-appeared more comfortable with handling contradictory information sources, and better able to articulate their valuing decisions. The research concludes with a discussion of the implications for both future research in the Library and Information Science field, and for the practice of both Library professionals and classroom instructors involved in assisting students involved in information valuing decision-making in a research process.

0.002440756 = product of:
  0.004881512 = sum of:
    0.004881512 = product of:
      0.009763024 = sum of:
        0.009763024 = weight(_text_:a in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009763024 = score(doc=4415,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This work proposes an approach which is intended to meet the particular challenges of Medical Language Processing, in particular medical information retrieval. At its core lies a new type of dictionary, in which the entries are equivalence classes of subwords, i.e., semantically minimal units. These equivalence classes capture intralingual as well as interlingual synonymy. As equivalence classes abstract away from subtle particularities within and between languages and reference to them is realized via a language-independent conceptual system, they form an interlingua. In this work, the theoretical foundations of this approach are elaborated on. Furthermore, design considerations of applications based on the subword methodology are drawn up and showcase implementations are evaluated in detail. Starting with the introduction of Medical Linguistics as a field of active research in Chapter two, its consideration as a domain separated form general linguistics is motivated. In particular, morphological phenomena inherent to medical language are figured in more detail, which leads to an alternative view on medical terms and the introduction of the notion of subwords. Chapter three describes the formal foundation of subwords and the underlying linguistic declarative as well as procedural knowledge. An implementation of the subword model for the medical domain, the MorphoSaurus system, is presented in Chapter four. Emphasis will be given on the multilingual aspect of the proposed approach, including English, German, and Portuguese. The automatic acquisition of (medical) subwords for other languages (Spanish, French, and Swedish), and their integration in already available resources is described in the fifth Chapter.
The proper handling of acronyms plays a crucial role in medical texts, e.g. in patient records, as well as in scientific literature. Chapter six presents an approach, in which acronyms are automatically acquired from (bio-) medical literature. Furthermore, acronyms and their definitions in different languages are linked to each other using the MorphoSaurus text processing system. Automatic word sense disambiguation is still one of the most challenging tasks in Natural Language Processing. In Chapter seven, cross-lingual considerations lead to a new methodology for automatic disambiguation applied to subwords. Beginning with Chapter eight, a series of applications based onMorphoSaurus are introduced. Firstly, the implementation of the subword approach within a crosslanguage information retrieval setting for the medical domain is described and evaluated on standard test document collections. In Chapter nine, this methodology is extended to multilingual information retrieval in the Web, for which user queries are translated into target languages based on the segmentation into subwords and their interlingual mappings. The cross-lingual, automatic assignment of document descriptors to documents is the topic of Chapter ten. A large-scale evaluation of a heuristic, as well as a statistical algorithm is carried out using a prominent medical thesaurus as a controlled vocabulary. In Chapter eleven, it will be shown how MorphoSaurus can be used to map monolingual, lexical resources across different languages. As a result, a large multilingual medical lexicon with high coverage and complete lexical information is built and evaluated against a comparable, already available and commonly used lexical repository for the medical domain. Chapter twelve sketches a few applications based on MorphoSaurus. The generality and applicability of the subword approach to other domains is outlined, and proof-of-concepts in real-world scenarios are presented. Finally, Chapter thirteen recapitulates the most important aspects of MorphoSaurus and the potential benefit of its employment in medical information systems is carefully assessed, both for medical experts in their everyday life, but also with regard to health care consumers and their existential information needs.

0.002440756 = product of:
  0.004881512 = sum of:
    0.004881512 = product of:
      0.009763024 = sum of:
        0.009763024 = weight(_text_:a in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009763024 = score(doc=1077,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

0.0024392908 = product of:
  0.0048785815 = sum of:
    0.0048785815 = product of:
      0.009757163 = sum of:
        0.009757163 = weight(_text_:a in 5819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009757163 = score(doc=5819,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 5819, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Industries have adopted a standardized set of practices for developing their products. In the automotive domain, the provision of safety-compliant systems is guided by ISO 26262, a standard that specifies a set of requirements and recommendations for developing automotive safety-critical systems. For being in compliance with ISO 26262, the safety lifecycle proposed by the standard must be included in the development process of a vehicle. Besides, a safety case that shows that the system is acceptably safe has to be provided. The provision of a safety case implies the execution of a precise documentation process. This process makes sure that the work products are available and traceable. Further, the documentation management is defined in the standard as a mandatory activity and guidelines are proposed/imposed for its elaboration. It would be appropriate to point out that a well-documented safety lifecycle will provide the necessary inputs for the generation of an ISO 26262-compliant safety case. The OSLC (Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration) standard and the maturing stack of semantic web technologies represent a promising integration platform for enabling semantic interoperability between the tools involved in the safety lifecycle. Tools for requirements, architecture, development management, among others, are expected to interact and shared data with the help of domains specifications created in OSLC. This thesis proposes the creation of an OSLC tool-chain infrastructure for sharing safety-related information, where fragments of safety information can be generated. The steps carried out during the elaboration of this master thesis consist in the identification, representation, and shaping of the RDF resources needed for the creation of a safety case. The focus of the thesis is limited to a tiny portion of the ISO 26262 left-hand side of the V-model, more exactly part 6 clause 8 of the standard: Software unit design and implementation. Regardless of the use of a restricted portion of the standard during the execution of this thesis, the findings can be extended to other parts, and the conclusions can be generalize. This master thesis is considered one of the first steps towards the provision of an OSLC-based and ISO 26262-compliant methodological approach for representing and shaping the work products resulting from the execution of the safety lifecycle, documentation required in the conformation of an ISO-compliant safety case.

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=3222,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of thesaurus-based indexing is a common approach for increasing the performance of information retrieval. In this thesis, we examine the suitability of a thesaurus for a given set of information and evaluate improvements of existing thesauri to get better search results. On this area, we focus on two aspects: 1. We demonstrate an analysis of the indexing results achieved by an automatic document indexer and the involved thesaurus. 2. We propose a method for thesaurus evaluation which is based on a combination of statistical measures and appropriate visualization techniques that support the detection of potential problems in a thesaurus. In this chapter, we give an overview of the context of our work. Next, we briefly outline the basics of thesaurus-based information retrieval and describe the Collexis Engine that was used for our experiments. In Chapter 3, we describe two experiments in automatically indexing documents in the areas of medicine and economics with corresponding thesauri and compare the results to available manual annotations. Chapter 4 describes methods for assessing thesauri and visualizing the result in terms of a treemap. We depict examples of interesting observations supported by the method and show that we actually find critical problems. We conclude with a discussion of open questions and future research in Chapter 5.

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 1133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=1133,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1133, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 3775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=3775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 6252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=6252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 6846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=6846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 6859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=6859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 7127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=7127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 7580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=7580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=470,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)