Search (675 results, page 1 of 34)

0.058001496 = sum of:
  0.041908182 = product of:
    0.16763273 = sum of:
      0.16763273 = weight(_text_:author's in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16763273 = score(doc=5491,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31929317 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04751278 = queryNorm
          0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.016093314 = product of:
    0.032186627 = sum of:
      0.032186627 = weight(_text_:22 in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032186627 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16638166 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04751278 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5491, 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=5491)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RDS are usually cross-disciplinary, centralised services, which are increasingly provided at a university by the academic library and in collaboration with other RDM stakeholders, such as the Research Office. At research-intensive universities, research data is generated in a wide range of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This paper will discuss how providing discipline-specific RDM support is approached by such universities and academic libraries, and the advantages and disadvantages of these central and discipline-specific approaches. A descriptive case study on the author's experiences of collaborating with a central RDS at the University of Cambridge, as a subject librarian embedded in an academic department, is a major component of this paper. The case study describes how centralised RDM services offered by the Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) have been adapted to meet discipline-specific needs in the Department of Chemistry. It will introduce the department and the OSC, and describe the author's role in delivering RDM training, as well as the Data Champions programme, and their membership of the RDM Project Group. It will describe the outcomes of this collaboration for the Department of Chemistry, and for the centralised service. Centralised and discipline-specific approaches to RDS provision have their own advantages and disadvantages. Supporting the discipline-specific RDM needs of researchers is proving particularly challenging for universities to address sustainably: it requires adequate financial resources and staff skilled (or re-skilled) in RDM. A mixed approach is the most desirable, cost-effective way of providing RDS, but this still has constraints.

Date

7. 9.2019 21:30:22

0.056597166 = product of:
  0.11319433 = sum of:
    0.11319433 = product of:
      0.45277733 = sum of:
        0.45277733 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.45277733 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40281388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.05487225 = sum of:
  0.035560273 = product of:
    0.14224109 = sum of:
      0.14224109 = weight(_text_:author's in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14224109 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31929317 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04751278 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019311976 = product of:
    0.03862395 = sum of:
      0.03862395 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03862395 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16638166 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04751278 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.

0.05487225 = sum of:
  0.035560273 = product of:
    0.14224109 = sum of:
      0.14224109 = weight(_text_:author's in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14224109 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31929317 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04751278 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019311976 = product of:
    0.03862395 = sum of:
      0.03862395 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03862395 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16638166 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04751278 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.047164306 = product of:
  0.09432861 = sum of:
    0.09432861 = product of:
      0.37731445 = sum of:
        0.37731445 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37731445 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40281388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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

0.033015016 = product of:
  0.06603003 = sum of:
    0.06603003 = product of:
      0.26412013 = sum of:
        0.26412013 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26412013 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40281388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.028298583 = product of:
  0.056597166 = sum of:
    0.056597166 = product of:
      0.22638866 = sum of:
        0.22638866 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22638866 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40281388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.028298583 = product of:
  0.056597166 = sum of:
    0.056597166 = product of:
      0.22638866 = sum of:
        0.22638866 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22638866 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40281388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.025749303 = product of:
  0.051498607 = sum of:
    0.051498607 = product of:
      0.10299721 = sum of:
        0.10299721 = weight(_text_:22 in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10299721 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16638166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2851, 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=2851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.02514491 = product of:
  0.05028982 = sum of:
    0.05028982 = product of:
      0.20115928 = sum of:
        0.20115928 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20115928 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31929317 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.

0.02514491 = product of:
  0.05028982 = sum of:
    0.05028982 = product of:
      0.20115928 = sum of:
        0.20115928 = weight(_text_:author's in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20115928 = score(doc=4131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31929317 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 4131, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4131)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many countries are moving towards research policies that emphasize excellence; consequently; they develop evaluation systems to identify universities, research groups, and researchers that can be said to be "excellent." Such active research policy strategies, in which evaluations are used to concentrate resources, are based on an unsubstantiated assumption that researchers' track records are indicative of their future research performance. In this study, information on authors' track records (previous publication volume and previous citation rate) is used to predict the impact of their articles. The study concludes that, to a certain degree, the impact of scientific work can be predicted using information on how often an author's previous publications have been cited. The relationship between past performance and the citation rate of articles is strongest at the high end of the citation distribution. The implications of these results are discussed in the context of a cumulative advantage process.

0.02514491 = product of:
  0.05028982 = sum of:
    0.05028982 = product of:
      0.20115928 = sum of:
        0.20115928 = weight(_text_:author's in 1762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20115928 = score(doc=1762,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31929317 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 1762, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1762)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide a critical reply to Robert Lingard's close reading of a previously published paper of the present author's, "Meaning, truth, and information." Design/methodology/approach - The approach adopted in this paper is an examination of Lingard's argument and counter-points, employing (primarily) logical and rhetorical analysis of his claims. Findings - While some of Lingard's criticisms are legitimate and must be admitted, many have to be subjected to rebuttal on the basis of misreading, logical error, and discursive misapprehension of points made in the original article. Originality/value - Since the present paper is a reply to another author's work, originality is constrained by the arguments and claims made by that author. That said, additional analysis is added to the matters of meaning, truth, and information in an effort to clarify and expand upon the essence of the original article.

0.02370685 = product of:
  0.0474137 = sum of:
    0.0474137 = product of:
      0.1896548 = sum of:
        0.1896548 = weight(_text_:author's in 1506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1896548 = score(doc=1506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31929317 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.59398323 = fieldWeight in 1506, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1506)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We show how automatically extracted citations in historical corpora can be used to measure the direct and indirect influence of authors on each other. These measures can in turn be used to determine an author's overall prominence in the corpus and to identify distinct schools of thought. We apply our methods to two major historical corpora. Using scholarly consensus as a gold standard, we demonstrate empirically the superiority of indirect influence over direct influence as a basis for various measures of authorial impact.

0.023582153 = product of:
  0.047164306 = sum of:
    0.047164306 = product of:
      0.18865722 = sum of:
        0.18865722 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18865722 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40281388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, 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=4997)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.023582153 = product of:
  0.047164306 = sum of:
    0.047164306 = product of:
      0.18865722 = sum of:
        0.18865722 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18865722 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40281388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.

0.023582153 = product of:
  0.047164306 = sum of:
    0.047164306 = product of:
      0.18865722 = sum of:
        0.18865722 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18865722 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40281388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, 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=855)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch: New automatic interpreter for complex UDC numbers. Unter: <https%3A%2F%2Fudcc.org%2Ffiles%2FAttilaPiros_EC_36-37_2014-2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3kc9CwDDCWP7aArpfjrs5b>

0.022759384 = product of:
  0.045518767 = sum of:
    0.045518767 = product of:
      0.091037534 = sum of:
        0.091037534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091037534 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16638166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

0.022759384 = product of:
  0.045518767 = sum of:
    0.045518767 = product of:
      0.091037534 = sum of:
        0.091037534 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091037534 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16638166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.022759384 = product of:
  0.045518767 = sum of:
    0.045518767 = product of:
      0.091037534 = sum of:
        0.091037534 = weight(_text_:22 in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091037534 = score(doc=3975,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16638166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2018 12:06:44
22. 2.2018 12:13:53

0.02253064 = product of:
  0.04506128 = sum of:
    0.04506128 = product of:
      0.09012256 = sum of:
        0.09012256 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09012256 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16638166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04751278 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38