Search (121 results, page 1 of 7)

0.0960265 = product of:
  0.192053 = sum of:
    0.192053 = sum of:
      0.10786875 = weight(_text_:e.g in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10786875 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.4611081 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.08418425 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08418425 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

0.044151224 = product of:
  0.08830245 = sum of:
    0.08830245 = sum of:
      0.053934377 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053934377 = score(doc=3012,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23055404 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
      0.034368075 = weight(_text_:22 in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034368075 = score(doc=3012,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When we were all facing the turn of the century and the somewhat larger turn of the millennium, we left behind epochs of colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, nazism and racialism. Not that the ideologies mentioned does no longer exist, but their impact as grand narratives has gone and they now exist as fragmented discursive parts of their former, illusive hegemony. Parts that have been thrown into the pits of post modern complexity. The 21st century holds no answers, no new meaning, at most it provides human communication a certain self reflectivity due to the increasing egocentrism and individuality of people (i.e. still mostly western people). Another symptom of the loss of grand narratives is a feeling of loss of meaning in everyday life, as well as the state of democracies around the world. Democracy shivers in its void between anarchy and repressive dictatorship. The description 'information age' provides the times we are in with a useful sticker. It tents both back in time e.g. the late 20, century digitalisation and forward in time by givingr origin to the contemporary discourse of social semantics i.e. Dream society, Knowledge society, Post modern society, Risk society, Hypercomplex society etc. The phrase 'information age' implied the introduction of a paradigm shift, and now it is still here showing that paradigms do not shift, they slide. This paper outlines a manifest for librarians and librarianship of the information age. The information age puts the spotlight on the librarian, both regarding classical tasks such as classification and cataloguing as well as new tasks such as systems analysis and design or database searching.

Date

22. 7.2009 11:23:22

0.036787182 = product of:
  0.073574364 = sum of:
    0.073574364 = sum of:
      0.058385678 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058385678 = score(doc=2748,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.24958208 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.0151886875 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0151886875 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

0.034368075 = product of:
  0.06873615 = sum of:
    0.06873615 = product of:
      0.1374723 = sum of:
        0.1374723 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1374723 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:01:22

0.031159198 = product of:
  0.062318396 = sum of:
    0.062318396 = product of:
      0.24927358 = sum of:
        0.24927358 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24927358 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38017118 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = 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].

0.026967188 = product of:
  0.053934377 = sum of:
    0.053934377 = product of:
      0.10786875 = sum of:
        0.10786875 = weight(_text_:e.g in 7272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10786875 = score(doc=7272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.4611081 = fieldWeight in 7272, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025776058 = product of:
  0.051552117 = sum of:
    0.051552117 = product of:
      0.103104234 = sum of:
        0.103104234 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103104234 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22
22. 7.2000 19:05:41

0.0243019 = product of:
  0.0486038 = sum of:
    0.0486038 = product of:
      0.0972076 = sum of:
        0.0972076 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0972076 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Ratio. 22(1980), S.155-164

0.0243019 = product of:
  0.0486038 = sum of:
    0.0486038 = product of:
      0.0972076 = sum of:
        0.0972076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0972076 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=4201,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 4201, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information is and always has been an elusive concept; nevertheless many philosophers, mathematicians, logicians and computer scientists have felt that it is fundamental. Many attempts have been made to come up with some sensible and intuitively acceptable definition of information; up to now, none of these have succeeded. This work is based on the approach followed by Dretske, Barwise, and Devlin, who claimed that the notion of information starts from the position that given an ontology of objects individuated by a cognitive agent, it makes sense to speak of the information an object (e.g., a text, an image, a video) contains about another object (e.g. the query). This phenomenon is captured by the flow of information between objects. Its exploitation is the task of an information retrieval system. These authors proposes a theory of information that provides an analysis of the concept of information (any type, from any media) and the manner in which intelligent organisms (referring to as cognitive agents) handle and respond to the information picked up from their environment. They defined the nature of information flow and the mechanisms that give rise to such a flow. The theory, which is based on Situation Theory, is expressed with a calculus defined on channels. The calculus was defined so that it satisfies properties that are attributes to information and its flows. This paper demonstrates the connection between this calculus and information retrieval, and porposes a model of an information retrieval system based on this calculus

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=4475,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 4475, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the past few decades, the task of judging the credibility of information has shifted from trained professionals (e.g., editors) to end users of information (e.g., casual Internet users). Lacking training in this task, it is highly relevant to research the behavior of these end users. In this article, we propose a new model of trust in information, in which trust judgments are dependent on three user characteristics: source experience, domain expertise, and information skills. Applying any of these three characteristics leads to different features of the information being used in trust judgments; namely source, semantic, and surface features (hence, the name 3S-model). An online experiment was performed to validate the 3S-model. In this experiment, Wikipedia articles of varying accuracy (semantic feature) were presented to Internet users. Trust judgments of domain experts on these articles were largely influenced by accuracy whereas trust judgments of novices remained mostly unchanged. Moreover, despite the influence of accuracy, the percentage of trusting participants, both experts and novices, was high in all conditions. Along with the rationales provided for such trust judgments, the outcome of the experiment largely supports the 3S-model, which can serve as a framework for future research on trust in information.

0.02359629 = product of:
  0.04719258 = sum of:
    0.04719258 = product of:
      0.09438516 = sum of:
        0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09438516 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The term information lacks precicion and there is no consensus about its definition because of the differing philosophical theories used as a basis for interpretation e.g. materialism, idealism. Draws on the ideas of Locke, Kant and Piaget to analyse the essential nature of information, concluding that for the purposes of library science, information is best understood as an ideal entity constructed by the individual synthesising his sensory perceptions of the actual world, which is then objectivised resulting in the world of information, part of the wider world but with its own structures, laws and interrelations. This make communication possible

0.02359629 = product of:
  0.04719258 = sum of:
    0.04719258 = product of:
      0.09438516 = sum of:
        0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09438516 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper a model for understanding the concept of information is presented and how the processes of externalization and perception of information by human beings could be understood. This model is different from the standard information theoretic model. It combines the understanding of cognitive information processing as an act of information generation from sense impressions with communication theoretic considerations. This approach can be of value for any system that is regarded as a knowledge system with an in-built ordering structure. As an application some consequences will be drawn for the design of information systems which claims to handle information itself (e.g. multimedia information systems) instead of giving references to bibliographic entities

0.02359629 = product of:
  0.04719258 = sum of:
    0.04719258 = product of:
      0.09438516 = sum of:
        0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09438516 = score(doc=3994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Summarises of a selection of the presentations and workshops under one of the main themes at the Association of Swiss Libraries and Librarians congress held in Yverdon, Sept 1998. Sessions covered comprise: workshop on stories in libraries (history of the tradition in French libraries and criteria for selecting material); oral and written traditions (presentation on continuing existence of various schools of interpretation e.g. mythological, anthropological, in relation to the importance of individual contact); and listening - reading - writing (presentation on links between these 3 forms of communication in the context of the challenge for libraries in the field of children's education)

0.02359629 = product of:
  0.04719258 = sum of:
    0.04719258 = product of:
      0.09438516 = sum of:
        0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09438516 = score(doc=227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 227, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many competing definitions for the terms data, information, metadata, and knowledge can be traced in the library and information science literature. The lack of a clear consensus in the way reference is made to the corresponding fundamental concepts is intensified if one considers additional disciplinary perspectives, e.g. database technology, data mining, etc. In the present paper, we use a common sense approach, to selectively survey the literature, and define these terms in a way that can advance the interdisciplinary development of information systems.

0.02359629 = product of:
  0.04719258 = sum of:
    0.04719258 = product of:
      0.09438516 = sum of:
        0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09438516 = score(doc=1853,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.

0.02225657 = product of:
  0.04451314 = sum of:
    0.04451314 = product of:
      0.17805256 = sum of:
        0.17805256 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17805256 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38017118 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, 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=5895)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Politische Meinung. 381(2001) Nr.1, S.65-74 [https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgfe.de%2Ffileadmin%2FOrdnerRedakteure%2FSektionen%2FSek02_AEW%2FKWF%2FPublikationen_Reihe_1989-2003%2FBand_17%2FBd_17_1994_355-406_A.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KcbRsHy5UQ9QRIUyuOLNi]

0.02225657 = product of:
  0.04451314 = sum of:
    0.04451314 = product of:
      0.17805256 = sum of:
        0.17805256 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17805256 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38017118 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_

0.021480048 = product of:
  0.042960096 = sum of:
    0.042960096 = product of:
      0.08592019 = sum of:
        0.08592019 = weight(_text_:22 in 1408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08592019 = score(doc=1408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 1408, 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=1408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Sozialphilosoph Hermann Lübbe ist überzeugt davon, daß die Massenmedien nicht 'vermassend', sondern vielmehr 'pluralistisch' wirken. - Bericht zu den 22. Frankfurter Römerberggesprächen zum Thema: Kommt eine neue Kultur? Auf der Suche nach Wirklichkeit im Medienzeitalter

0.021480048 = product of:
  0.042960096 = sum of:
    0.042960096 = product of:
      0.08592019 = sum of:
        0.08592019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08592019 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = 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