-
King, D.W.: Blazing new trails : in celebration of an audacious career (2000)
0.06
0.05531589 = product of:
0.11063178 = sum of:
0.11063178 = sum of:
0.07984974 = weight(_text_:i in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07984974 = score(doc=1184,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.46590847 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03078204 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- I had the distinct pleasure of working with Pauline Atherton (Cochrane) during the 1960s, a period that can be considered the heyday of automated information system design and evaluation in the United States. I first met Pauline at the 1962 American Documentation Institute annual meeting in North Hollywood, Florida. My company, Westat Research Analysts, had recently been awarded a contract by the U.S. Patent Office to provide statistical support for the design of experiments with automated information retrieval systems. I was asked to attend the meeting to learn more about information retrieval systems and to begin informing others of U.S. Patent Office activities in this area. At one session, Pauline and I questioned a speaker about the research that he presented. Pauline's questions concerned the logic of their approach and mine, the statistical aspects. After the session, she came over to talk to me and we began a professional and personal friendship that continues to this day. During the 1960s, Pauline was involved in several important information-retrieval projects including a series of studies for the American Institute of Physics, a dissertation examining the relevance of retrieved documents, and development and evaluation of an online information-retrieval system. I had the opportunity to work with Pauline and her colleagues an four of those projects and will briefly describe her work in the 1960s.
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
-
Iivonen, M.: Consistency in the selection of search concepts and search terms (1995)
0.04
0.039895155 = product of:
0.07979031 = sum of:
0.07979031 = sum of:
0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042851865 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036938448 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions
-
Belkin, N.J.: ¬An overview of results from Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval (1998)
0.03
0.033245962 = product of:
0.066491924 = sum of:
0.066491924 = sum of:
0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035709884 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03078204 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
-
Aitchison, T.M.: Comparative evaluation of index languages : Part I, Design. Part II, Results (1969)
0.02
0.024996921 = product of:
0.049993843 = sum of:
0.049993843 = product of:
0.099987686 = sum of:
0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099987686 = score(doc=561,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 561, 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=561)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Järvelin, K.: Evaluation (2011)
0.02
0.024996921 = product of:
0.049993843 = sum of:
0.049993843 = product of:
0.099987686 = sum of:
0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099987686 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 548, 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=548)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. Eds.: Ruthven, I. u. D. Kelly
-
Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984)
0.02
0.021547427 = product of:
0.043094855 = sum of:
0.043094855 = product of:
0.08618971 = sum of:
0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08618971 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, 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=262)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20.10.2000 12:22:23
-
Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Parker, J.: Maximizing relevant retrieval : keyword and natural language searching (1998)
0.02
0.021547427 = product of:
0.043094855 = sum of:
0.043094855 = product of:
0.08618971 = sum of:
0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08618971 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, 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=6418)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58
-
Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000)
0.02
0.021547427 = product of:
0.043094855 = sum of:
0.043094855 = product of:
0.08618971 = sum of:
0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08618971 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, 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=6438)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 11. 8.2001 16:22:19
-
Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990)
0.02
0.021547427 = product of:
0.043094855 = sum of:
0.043094855 = product of:
0.08618971 = sum of:
0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08618971 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, 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=5089)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:43:54
-
Sanderson, M.; Ruthven, I.: Report on the Glasgow IR group (glair4) submission (1997)
0.02
0.021425933 = product of:
0.042851865 = sum of:
0.042851865 = product of:
0.08570373 = sum of:
0.08570373 = weight(_text_:i in 3088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08570373 = score(doc=3088,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 3088, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3088)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.: ¬The testing of index language devices (1985)
0.02
0.018895898 = product of:
0.037791796 = sum of:
0.037791796 = product of:
0.07558359 = sum of:
0.07558359 = weight(_text_:i in 3643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07558359 = score(doc=3643,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.4410163 = fieldWeight in 3643, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3643)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A landmark event in the twentieth-century development of subject analysis theory was a retrieval experiment, begun in 1957, by Cyril Cleverdon, Librarian of the Cranfield Institute of Technology. For this work he received the Professional Award of the Special Libraries Association in 1962 and the Award of Merit of the American Society for Information Science in 1970. The objective of the experiment, called Cranfield I, was to test the ability of four indexing systems-UDC, Facet, Uniterm, and Alphabetic-Subject Headings-to retrieve material responsive to questions addressed to a collection of documents. The experiment was ambitious in scale, consisting of eighteen thousand documents and twelve hundred questions. Prior to Cranfield I, the question of what constitutes good indexing was approached subjectively and reference was made to assumptions in the form of principles that should be observed or user needs that should be met. Cranfield I was the first large-scale effort to use objective criteria for determining the parameters of good indexing. Its creative impetus was the definition of user satisfaction in terms of precision and recall. Out of the experiment emerged the definition of recall as the percentage of relevant documents retrieved and precision as the percentage of retrieved documents that were relevant. Operationalizing the concept of user satisfaction, that is, making it measurable, meant that it could be studied empirically and manipulated as a variable in mathematical equations. Much has been made of the fact that the experimental methodology of Cranfield I was seriously flawed. This is unfortunate as it tends to diminish Cleverdon's contribu tion, which was not methodological-such contributions can be left to benchmark researchers-but rather creative: the introduction of a new paradigm, one that proved to be eminently productive. The criticism leveled at the methodological shortcomings of Cranfield I underscored the need for more precise definitions of the variables involved in information retrieval. Particularly important was the need for a definition of the dependent variable index language. Like the definitions of precision and recall, that of index language provided a new way of looking at the indexing process. It was a re-visioning that stimulated research activity and led not only to a better understanding of indexing but also the design of better retrieval systems." Cranfield I was followed by Cranfield II. While Cranfield I was a wholesale comparison of four indexing "systems," Cranfield II aimed to single out various individual factors in index languages, called "indexing devices," and to measure how variations in these affected retrieval performance. The following selection represents the thinking at Cranfield midway between these two notable retrieval experiments.
-
Crestani, F.; Ruthven, I.; Sanderson, M.; Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬The troubles with using a logical model of IR on a large collection of documents : experimenting retrieval by logical imaging on TREC (1996)
0.02
0.017854942 = product of:
0.035709884 = sum of:
0.035709884 = product of:
0.07141977 = sum of:
0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 7522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07141977 = score(doc=7522,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 7522, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7522)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Allan, J.; Callan, J.P.; Croft, W.B.; Ballesteros, L.; Broglio, J.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.: INQUERY at TREC-5 (1997)
0.02
0.01539102 = product of:
0.03078204 = sum of:
0.03078204 = product of:
0.06156408 = sum of:
0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06156408 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 27. 2.1999 20:55:22
-
Ng, K.B.; Loewenstern, D.; Basu, C.; Hirsh, H.; Kantor, P.B.: Data fusion of machine-learning methods for the TREC5 routing tak (and other work) (1997)
0.02
0.01539102 = product of:
0.03078204 = sum of:
0.03078204 = product of:
0.06156408 = sum of:
0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06156408 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 27. 2.1999 20:59:22
-
Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983)
0.02
0.01539102 = product of:
0.03078204 = sum of:
0.03078204 = product of:
0.06156408 = sum of:
0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06156408 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.22-25
-
Jochum, F.; Weissmann, V.: Struktur und Elemente des Information Retrieval Experiments (1985)
0.01
0.014283955 = product of:
0.02856791 = sum of:
0.02856791 = product of:
0.05713582 = sum of:
0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05713582 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Anwendungen in der Klassifikation. I. Proc. 8. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Hofgeismar, 10.-13.4.1984. Hrsg.: R.G. Henzler
-
Harter, S.P.: Variations in relevance assessments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness (1996)
0.01
0.012625352 = product of:
0.025250703 = sum of:
0.025250703 = product of:
0.050501406 = sum of:
0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050501406 = score(doc=3004,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this article is to bring attention to the problem of variations in relevance assessments and the effects that these may have on measures of retrieval effectiveness. Through an analytical review of the literature, I show that despite known wide variations in relevance assessments in experimental test collections, their effects on the measurement of retrieval performance are almost completely unstudied. I will further argue that what we know about tha many variables that have been found to affect relevance assessments under experimental conditions, as well as our new understanding of psychological, situational, user-based relevance, point to a single conclusion. We can no longer rest the evaluation of information retrieval systems on the assumption that such variations do not significantly affect the measurement of information retrieval performance. A series of thourough, rigorous, and extensive tests is needed, of precisely how, and under what conditions, variations in relevance assessments do, and do not, affect measures of retrieval performance. We need to develop approaches to evaluation that are sensitive to these variations and to human factors and individual differences more generally. Our approaches to evaluation must reflect the real world of real users
-
Parapar, J.; Losada, D.E.; Presedo-Quindimil, M.A.; Barreiro, A.: Using score distributions to compare statistical significance tests for information retrieval evaluation (2020)
0.01
0.012625352 = product of:
0.025250703 = sum of:
0.025250703 = product of:
0.050501406 = sum of:
0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 5506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050501406 = score(doc=5506,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 5506, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5506)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Statistical significance tests can provide evidence that the observed difference in performance between 2 methods is not due to chance. In information retrieval (IR), some studies have examined the validity and suitability of such tests for comparing search systems. We argue here that current methods for assessing the reliability of statistical tests suffer from some methodological weaknesses, and we propose a novel way to study significance tests for retrieval evaluation. Using Score Distributions, we model the output of multiple search systems, produce simulated search results from such models, and compare them using various significance tests. A key strength of this approach is that we assess statistical tests under perfect knowledge about the truth or falseness of the null hypothesis. This new method for studying the power of significance tests in IR evaluation is formal and innovative. Following this type of analysis, we found that both the sign test and Wilcoxon signed test have more power than the permutation test and the t-test. The sign test and Wilcoxon signed test also have good behavior in terms of type I errors. The bootstrap test shows few type I errors, but it has less power than the other methods tested.
-
Robertson, S.E.: ¬The parametric description of retrieval tests : Part I: The basic parameters (1969)
0.01
0.012498461 = product of:
0.024996921 = sum of:
0.024996921 = product of:
0.049993843 = sum of:
0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 4155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049993843 = score(doc=4155,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 4155, 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=4155)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬A test for the separation of relevant and non-relevant documents in experimental retrieval collections (1973)
0.01
0.0123128155 = product of:
0.024625631 = sum of:
0.024625631 = product of:
0.049251262 = sum of:
0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049251262 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.1996 11:22:12
