Search (75 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3627,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3855,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) use arrays of related concepts to capture the ontological content of a domain; hierarchical structures are typical of such systems. Some KOSs also employ sets of crossconceptual descriptors that express different dimensions within a domain-facets. The recent increase in the prominence of facets and faceted systems has had major impact on the intension of the KO domain and this is visible in the domain's literature. An interesting question is how the discourse surrounding facets in KO and in related domains such as information science might be described. The present paper reports one case study in an ongoing research project to investigate the discourse of facets in KO. In this particular case, the formal current research literature represented by inclusion in the "Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, Full Text" (LISTA) database is analyzed to discover aspects of the research front and its ongoing discourse concerning facets. A datasets of 1682 citations was analyzed. Results show thinking concerning information retrieval and the semantic web resides alongside implementation of faceted searching and the growth of faceted thesauri. Faceted classification remains important to the discourse, but the use of facet analysis is linked directly to applied aspects of information science.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=5399,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5399, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research information can be useful to science stake-holders for discovering, evaluating and planning research activities. In the Netherlands, the institute tasked with the stewardship of national research information is DANS (Data Archiving and Networked Services). DANS is the home of NARCIS, the national portal for research information, which uses a similarly named national research classification. The NARCIS Classification assigns symbols to represent the knowledge bases of contributing scholars. A recent research stream in knowledge organization known as comparative classification uses two or more classifications experimentally to generate empirical evidence about coverage of conceptual content, population of the classes, and economy of classification. This paper builds on that research in order to further understand the comparative impact of the NARCIS Classification alongside a classification designed specifically for information resources. Our six cases come from the DANS project Knowledge Organization System Observatory (KOSo), which itself is classified using the Information Coding Classification (ICC) created in 1982 by Ingetraut Dahlberg. ICC is considered to have the merits of universality, faceting, and a top-down approach. Results are exploratory, indicating that both classifications provide fairly precise coverage. The inflexibility of the NARCIS Classification makes it difficult to express complex concepts. The meta-ontological, epistemic stance of the ICC is apparent in all aspects of this study. Using the two together in the DANS KOS Observatory will provide users with both clarity of scientific positioning and ontological relativity.

Type

a

0.0017899501 = product of:
  0.0035799001 = sum of:
    0.0035799001 = product of:
      0.0071598003 = sum of:
        0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071598003 = score(doc=2671,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The harmonization and extension of a taxonomy of works from the documentary to the artefactual domain represents an attempt to further knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries. The uses and users of works, both documentary and artefactual, are global-the need for this advance in the organization of knowledge is therefore also global. Works are the formal records of knowledge, the essential records of human accomplishment. Works are a global phenomenon despite potential cultural variations in their creation and instantiation, and the need to organize works for retrieval is likewise a global phenomenon. Artefacts (sculptures, paintings, realia, documents, books, scores, recordings, etc.) are the physical media collected by repositories of culture (libraries, archives, museums, etc.), and are the means by which works are communicated. Works mutate and derive across time and culture in response to their entrance into a canon of cultural meaning. In the present paper, we review the characteristics of documentary works. Then we extend the metaphor from the documentary environment to the artefactual environment. To carry the metaphor from the documentary domain to the artefactual domain we alter the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. an epistemological architecture of content-genealogy is presented, demonstrating the potential for mutation and derivation of the representations of artefacts. Case studies of Etruscan artefacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in nondocumentary artefacts. An outline of a meta-theory of "works" is presented that harmonizes the documentary and artefactual domains.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=2648,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A historic development from the mid-20th century has promise for utility in the global organization of knowledge in the 20 century and beyond. Essential concepts of knowledge organization such as the origin of domain- and ecology-specific ontologies are explored, and insight into classification warrant is offered. The Sachs Classification as it now exists and the Worldmark Encyclopedia from which it evolved are described. The continuing evolution of knowledge organizations based an the methodology of the Sachs Classification is demonstrated. Promise for enhanced knowledge management, and for management of electronic resources is demonstrated. The Sachs Classification can be viewed as a methodology for potentially powerful knowledge management through the development of domain- and ecology-specific ontologies, and its methodology is demonstrated as applicable to new and evolving knowledge domains.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=490,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper takes for granted that archival materials will be entered into a catalog in which Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) will be used to provide access. The purposes of subject access are discussed. The matter of selecting the appropriate extent of subject cataloging for archival entities is raised. Archival entities will generally require more detailed subject cataloging than published materials. A scheme for subject analysis of archival materials is presented. LCSH is described briefly, and several archival entities are analyzed and provided with LCSH access points to illustrate the methodology employed. The chief advantages of using LCSH for archival materials are its availability, and its ability to cause archival materials to collocate topically with published materials in integrated online systems.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=5575,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The fundamental principle of order in the library catalogue is the authorship principle, which serves as the organizing node of an alphabetico-classed system, in which "texts" of "works" are organized first alphabetically by uniform title of the progenitor work and then are subarranged using titles for variant instantiations, under the heading for an "author." We analyze case studies of entries from (1) the first documented imperial library catalogue, the Seven Epitomes (Qilue [??]), in China; (2) Abelard's Works, which featured prominently in the 1848 testimony of Antonio Panizzi; and (3) The French Chef and the large family of instantiated works associated with it. Our analysis shows that the catalogue typically contains many large superwork sets. A more pragmatic approach to the design of catalogues is to array descriptions of resources in relation to the superwork sets to which they might belong. In all cases, a multidimensional faceted arrangement incorporating ideational nodes from the universe of recorded knowledge holds promise for greatly enhanced retrieval capability.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 5729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=5729,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5729, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The referencing habits of scholars, having abandoned physical bibliography for harvesting of digital resources, are in crisis, endangering the bibliographical infrastructure supporting the domain of knowledge organization. Research must be carefully managed and its circumstances controlled. Bibliographical replicability is one important part of the social role of scholarship. References in Knowledge Organization volume 45 (2018) were compiled and analyzed to help visualize the state of referencing in the KO domain. The dependence of science on the ability to replicate is even more critical in a global distributed digital environment. There is great richness in KO that make it even more critical that our scholarly community tend to the relationship between bibliographical verity and the very replicability that is allowing the field to grow theoretically over time.

Type

a

0.0015662063 = product of:
  0.0031324127 = sum of:
    0.0031324127 = product of:
      0.0062648254 = sum of:
        0.0062648254 = weight(_text_:a in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062648254 = score(doc=4555,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11796933 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As we all know, Knowledge Organization (KO) is a pretty broad domain. Although the concept-theoretic approach to classification is at the core along with several other important pieces of what we call classification theory, both the intension and the extension of the domain are represented by broad trajectories. Arguably, the biennial conferences represent way stations within the matrix of the domain-points in time when we pause to take stock of our current research. Also, because each conference is hosted and planned by a regional chapter, each then reflects peculiar parameters of the intersections of intensional and extensional trajectories. Perhaps because the domain of knowledge itself is so immense, so also is our corporate attempt to grapple with the theoretical and applied aspects of its organization. Furthermore, because of the breadth of our domain, many possibilities exist for its representation, depending on the constitution of the research front (or fronts) at any moment in time. That is, research in the domain stretches in all directions from its solid theoretical core down many much more granular roadways. Thus by analyzing the activity and contents of these metaphorical way stations-that is, by bring the tools of domain analysis to bear on our own biennial conferences-we are able to visualize the moment in time represented by the accumulated scholarship generated by each conference. 2010's 11th International ISKO Conference in Rome offered the latest opportunity for analysis on a broad scale.
To take advantage of the wonderful Italian weather, ISKO's 2010 conference was moved from the usual August to February; the venue was the Sapienza University (officially Sapienza - Università di Roma) and the conference took place 23-26 February 2010. The conference was organized and hosted by ISKO Italy and the Faculty of Philosophy of Sapienza University. Each morning as attendees arrived, we were treated to the garden pictured in Figure 1, and especially interesting was the fountain and the statue of St. Francis. Of course, the mystery was the turtle at St. Francis' foot, which looks quite like part of the statue but turned out to be real. The peaceful gardens were just a hallmark of the contemplative nature of the conference. Officially the 11th International ISKO Conference, the theme was "Paradigms and Conceptual Systems in Knowledge Organization." The proceedings and the conference program together listed 65 presentations, of which 64 were actually presented and 61 had papers included in the proceedings (or, 4 papers were presented but not included in the proceedings, and 1 paper included in the proceedings was not presented). Although space is insufficient for a full analysis, following from my editorial following ISKO 10 (Smiraglia 2008), I will use this space to paint a brief bibliometric portrait of the domain at the core of this conference. Data for this analysis come from the PDF of the proceedings; all citations for all papers were pasted in an Excel spreadsheet, where the citations were variously delimited for the following analyses. The original file is available on my blog: http://lazykoblog.wordpress.com/.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5631,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5652,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2364,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliocentricity in the library catalog arose from the practice of resource description, which emerged from the simple listing of books as objects with little reference to their intellectual content. Combined with shifting cultural conceptions of authorship, this led to a complex system in which the implicit concept of "goodness" affected the efficacy of description of varying resources. Issues of domain-specificity, cultural origins or contexts of usage have been disregarded in deference to book-like considerations. RDA (Resource Description and Access provides for analytical descriptions using the knowledge-based FRBR conceptual model of entities based on the artifactual intersection of intellectual works and cultural information carriers. The more empirically- based FRBRoo, an object-oriented revision of the conceptual model, reflects the atemporality of instantiation. FRBRoo seems promising as a potential additional facet for expressing structural components of knowledge represented by traditionally conceptual KOSs. In this study two cases are analyzed from the point of view of both RDA and FRBRoo. Analysis shows how little synergy has been gained through RDA's implementation of the FRBR model. The cases analyzed using RDA and FRBRoo serve as artifacts of cultural discourse, by which the measure of objective violence reflects the degree to which individual works still cannot be disambiguated.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=4795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a