Search (149 results, page 1 of 8)

0.08814547 = sum of:
  0.06314855 = product of:
    0.2525942 = sum of:
      0.2525942 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2525942 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38523552 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = 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)
  0.024996921 = product of:
    0.049993843 = sum of:
      0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049993843 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    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].

0.07744224 = product of:
  0.15488449 = sum of:
    0.15488449 = sum of:
      0.11178964 = weight(_text_:i in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11178964 = score(doc=1296,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.65227187 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043094855 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

0.034825902 = product of:
  0.069651805 = sum of:
    0.069651805 = product of:
      0.13930361 = sum of:
        0.13930361 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13930361 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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

0.033245962 = product of:
  0.066491924 = sum of:
    0.066491924 = sum of:
      0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035709884 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03078204 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

0.033245962 = product of:
  0.066491924 = sum of:
    0.066491924 = sum of:
      0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035709884 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03078204 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

0.031315383 = product of:
  0.062630765 = sum of:
    0.062630765 = sum of:
      0.047239747 = weight(_text_:i in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047239747 = score(doc=2748,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.27563518 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.01539102 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01539102 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = 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

0.029609075 = product of:
  0.05921815 = sum of:
    0.05921815 = product of:
      0.1184363 = sum of:
        0.1184363 = weight(_text_:i in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1184363 = score(doc=1234,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.6910539 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I have become "brutally honest" of late, at least according to one listener who heard my remarks during a recent whistle stop speaking tour of publishing conventions. This comment caught me a little off guard. Not that I haven't always been frank, but I do try never to be brutal. The truth, I guess, can be painful, even if the intention of the teller is simply objectivity. This paper is based on a "brutally honest" talk I have been giving to publishers, first, in February, to the Association of American Publishers' Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division, at which point I was calling the piece, "The Illusion of Free Information." It was this initial rendition that led to the invitation to publish something here. Since then I've been working on the talk. I gave a second version of it in March to the assembly of the American Society of Information Dissemination Centers, where I called it, "When Sectors Clash: Public Access vs. Private Interest." And, most recently, I gave yet a third version of it to the governing board of the American Institute of Physics. This time I called it: "The Future of Society Publishing." The notion of free information, our government's proper role in distributing free information, and the future of scholarly publishing in a world of free information . . . these are the issues that are floating around in my head. My goal here is to tell you where my thinking is only at this moment, for I reserve the right to continue thinking and developing new permutations on this mentally challenging theme.

0.02856791 = product of:
  0.05713582 = sum of:
    0.05713582 = product of:
      0.11427164 = sum of:
        0.11427164 = weight(_text_:i in 6586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11427164 = score(doc=6586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.6667539 = fieldWeight in 6586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02659677 = product of:
  0.05319354 = sum of:
    0.05319354 = sum of:
      0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 2317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02856791 = score(doc=2317,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 2317, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2317)
      0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 2317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024625631 = score(doc=2317,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2317, 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=2317)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: (0): SCHMIDT, S.J.: Medien, Kommunikation und das 18. Kamel; WEISCHENBERG, S.: Die Realität des John F. Kennedy; MERTEN, K.: Wirken sie wirklich, die Wirkungen der Massenkommunikation?; (1): WEISCHENBERG, S.: Der Kampf um die Köpfe: Affären und die Spielregeln der 'Mediengesellschaft'; SCHMIDT, S.J.: Wir verstehen uns doch? Von der Unwahrscheinlicjkeit gelingender Kommunikation; MERTEN, K.: Inszenierung von Alltag: Kommunikation, Massenkommunikation, Medien; (2): KRUSE, P. u. M. STADLER: Wahrnehmen, Verstehen, Erinnern: der Aufbau des psychischen Apparates; SCHEFFER, B.: Wie wir erkennen: die soziale Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit im Individuum; (3): KRIPPENDORFF, K.: Der verschwundene Bote: Metaphern und Modelle der Kommunikation; GRABOWSKI, J., T. HERRMANN u. R. POBEL: Sprechen, Handeln, Regulieren: vom Zeichentausch zum zielgerichteten Sprechen; (4): RUSCH, G.: Verstehen verstehen: kognitive Autonomie und soziale Regulation; MEUTSCH, D.: Ein Bild sagt mehr als tausend Worte? Befunde zum Bildverstehen; (5): MERTEN, K.: Unsere tägliche Wirklichkeit heute: wie Medien die Kommunikation entfalten; ASSMANN, A. u, J. ASSMANN: Das Gestern im Heute: Medien und soziales Gedächtnis; ELSNER, M., H.U. GUMBRECHT, T. MÜLLER u. P.M. SPANGENBERG: Von Revolution zu Revolution: zur Kulturgeschichte der Medien; (6) SCHMIDT, S.J.: Die Münzen der Kommunikation: Gattungen, Berichterstattungsmuster, Darstellungsformen; RUHRMANN, G.: Zeitgeschichte à la carte: Ereignis, Nachricht und Rezipient; (7) NEVERLA, I.: Männerwelten - Frauenwelten: Wirklichkeitsmodelle, Geschlechterrollen, Chancenverteilung; FAULSTICH, W.: Stars: Idole, Werbeträger, Helden: sozialer Wandel durch Medien; (8): SCHMIDT, S.J.: Das 'Wahre, Schöne, Gute'? Literatur als soziales System; WEISCHENBERG, S. u. U. HIENZSCH: Neuigkeiten vom Fließband: Journalismus als soziales System; WEISCHENBERG, S, u. U. HIENZSCH: Von der Tontafel zum Chip: technische Grundlagen der Medienkommunikation; PROTT, J.: Kommunikation als Dienst und Handel: Organisation und Ökonomie der Medien; (9): RÜHL, M.: Zwischen Information und Unterhaltung: Funktionen der Medienkommunikation; MERTEN, K.: Allmacht oder Ohnmacht der Medien? Erklärungsmuster der Medienwirkungsforschung; PETERS, H.P.: Warner oder Angstmacher? Thema Risikokommunikation; (10): KREBS, D.: Verführung oder Therapie? Pornographie und Gewalt in den Medien; HURRELMANN, B.: Sozialisation vor dem Bildschirm: Kinder und Medien; LANG; K. u. G.E. Lang: Spiegel der Gesellschaft: Medien und öffentliche Meinung; (11): RÖPER, H.: Märkte, Mächte, Monopole: das Mediensystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland; KLEINSTEUBER, H.J.: Das globale Netz: nationale und internationale Mediensysteme; (12): BAACKE, D. u. H.-D. Kübler: Lernen und Erziehen in der Medienumwelt: Konzepte der Medienpädagogik; LÖFFELHOLZ, M. u. K.-D. ALTMEPPEN: Kommunikation morgen: Perspektiven der 'Informationsgesellschaft'

Date

15.10.1995 11:44:22

0.02659677 = product of:
  0.05319354 = sum of:
    0.05319354 = sum of:
      0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02856791 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024625631 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2596, 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=2596)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.026119428 = product of:
  0.052238856 = sum of:
    0.052238856 = product of:
      0.10447771 = sum of:
        0.10447771 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10447771 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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

0.024996921 = product of:
  0.049993843 = sum of:
    0.049993843 = product of:
      0.099987686 = sum of:
        0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099987686 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.024996921 = product of:
  0.049993843 = sum of:
    0.049993843 = product of:
      0.099987686 = sum of:
        0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099987686 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. Eds.: Ruthven, I. u. D. Kelly

0.024625631 = product of:
  0.049251262 = sum of:
    0.049251262 = product of:
      0.098502524 = sum of:
        0.098502524 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098502524 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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

0.024625631 = product of:
  0.049251262 = sum of:
    0.049251262 = product of:
      0.098502524 = sum of:
        0.098502524 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098502524 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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

0.022553055 = product of:
  0.04510611 = sum of:
    0.04510611 = product of:
      0.18042444 = sum of:
        0.18042444 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18042444 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38523552 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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]

0.022553055 = product of:
  0.04510611 = sum of:
    0.04510611 = product of:
      0.18042444 = sum of:
        0.18042444 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18042444 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38523552 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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_

0.02176619 = product of:
  0.04353238 = sum of:
    0.04353238 = product of:
      0.08706476 = sum of:
        0.08706476 = weight(_text_:22 in 1408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08706476 = score(doc=1408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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

0.02176619 = product of:
  0.04353238 = sum of:
    0.04353238 = product of:
      0.08706476 = sum of:
        0.08706476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08706476 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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

0.021547427 = product of:
  0.043094855 = sum of:
    0.043094855 = product of:
      0.08618971 = sum of:
        0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 1823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08618971 = score(doc=1823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1823, 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=1823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:23:03