-
Onofri, A.: Concepts in context (2013)
0.04
0.035400786 = product of:
0.07080157 = sum of:
0.07080157 = product of:
0.10620236 = sum of:
0.08554743 = weight(_text_:i in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08554743 = score(doc=1077,freq=24.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.5052476 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
0.020654924 = weight(_text_:c in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020654924 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.
-
Menzel, C.: Knowledge representation, the World Wide Web, and the evolution of logic (2011)
0.03
0.031759724 = product of:
0.06351945 = sum of:
0.06351945 = product of:
0.09527917 = sum of:
0.05987073 = weight(_text_:i in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05987073 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035408445 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.
-
Sánchez, M.F.: Semantically enhanced Information Retrieval : an ontology-based approach (2006)
0.01
0.011759723 = product of:
0.023519445 = sum of:
0.023519445 = product of:
0.07055833 = sum of:
0.07055833 = weight(_text_:i in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07055833 = score(doc=4327,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 4327, 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=4327)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Part I. Analyzing the state of the art - What is semantic search? Part II. The proposal - An ontology-based IR model - Semantic retrieval on the Web Part III. Extensions - Semantic knowledge gateway - Coping with knowledge incompleteness
-
Kottmann, N.; Studer, T.: Improving semantic query answering (2006)
0.01
0.011127802 = product of:
0.022255603 = sum of:
0.022255603 = product of:
0.066766806 = sum of:
0.066766806 = weight(_text_:c in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066766806 = score(doc=3979,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.43117565 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The retrieval problem is one of the main reasoning tasks for knowledge base systems. Given a knowledge base K and a concept C, the retrieval problem consists of finding all individuals a for which K logically entails C(a). We present an approach to answer retrieval queries over (a restriction of) OWL ontologies. Our solution is based on reducing the retrieval problem to a problem of evaluating an SQL query over a database constructed from the original knowledge base. We provide complete answers to retrieval problems. Still, our system performs very well as is shown by a standard benchmark.
-
Schubert, C.; Kinkeldey, C.; Reich, H.: Handbuch Datenbankanwendung zur Wissensrepräsentation im Verbundprojekt DeCOVER (2006)
0.01
0.011127802 = product of:
0.022255603 = sum of:
0.022255603 = product of:
0.066766806 = sum of:
0.066766806 = weight(_text_:c in 4256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066766806 = score(doc=4256,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.43117565 = fieldWeight in 4256, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4256)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004)
0.01
0.010889656 = product of:
0.021779312 = sum of:
0.021779312 = product of:
0.06533793 = sum of:
0.06533793 = weight(_text_:i in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06533793 = score(doc=2362,freq=14.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.38588926 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".
-
Drewer, P.; Massion, F; Pulitano, D: Was haben Wissensmodellierung, Wissensstrukturierung, künstliche Intelligenz und Terminologie miteinander zu tun? (2017)
0.01
0.010136919 = product of:
0.020273838 = sum of:
0.020273838 = product of:
0.060821515 = sum of:
0.060821515 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060821515 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, 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=5576)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13.12.2017 14:17:22
-
Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007)
0.01
0.010136919 = product of:
0.020273838 = sum of:
0.020273838 = product of:
0.060821515 = sum of:
0.060821515 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060821515 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26.12.2011 13:22:07
-
Bechhofer, S.; Harmelen, F. van; Hendler, J.; Horrocks, I.; McGuinness, D.L.; Patel-Schneider, P.F.; Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (2004)
0.01
0.008231806 = product of:
0.016463611 = sum of:
0.016463611 = product of:
0.049390834 = sum of:
0.049390834 = weight(_text_:i in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049390834 = score(doc=4684,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 4684, 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=4684)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Paralic, J.; Kostial, I.: Ontology-based information retrieval (2003)
0.01
0.008231806 = product of:
0.016463611 = sum of:
0.016463611 = product of:
0.049390834 = sum of:
0.049390834 = weight(_text_:i in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049390834 = score(doc=1153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1153, 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=1153)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004)
0.01
0.008109535 = product of:
0.01621907 = sum of:
0.01621907 = product of:
0.04865721 = sum of:
0.04865721 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04865721 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, 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=4685)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 14. 8.2011 13:33:22
-
Hauff-Hartig, S.: Wissensrepräsentation durch RDF: Drei angewandte Forschungsbeispiele : Bitte recht vielfältig: Wie Wissensgraphen, Disco und FaBiO Struktur in Mangas und die Humanities bringen (2021)
0.01
0.008109535 = product of:
0.01621907 = sum of:
0.01621907 = product of:
0.04865721 = sum of:
0.04865721 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04865721 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.2021 12:43:05
-
Bauckhage, C.: Moderne Textanalyse : neues Wissen für intelligente Lösungen (2016)
0.01
0.007868543 = product of:
0.015737087 = sum of:
0.015737087 = product of:
0.04721126 = sum of:
0.04721126 = weight(_text_:c in 2568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04721126 = score(doc=2568,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 2568, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2568)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Knorz, G.; Rein, B.: Semantische Suche in einer Hochschulontologie : Ontologie-basiertes Information-Filtering und -Retrieval mit relationalen Datenbanken (2005)
0.01
0.007095843 = product of:
0.014191686 = sum of:
0.014191686 = product of:
0.042575058 = sum of:
0.042575058 = weight(_text_:22 in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042575058 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 11. 2.2011 18:22:25
-
Mayfield, J.; Finin, T.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : integrating inference and retrieval
0.01
0.007095843 = product of:
0.014191686 = sum of:
0.014191686 = product of:
0.042575058 = sum of:
0.042575058 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042575058 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4330, 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=4330)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 12. 2.2011 17:35:22
-
Priss, U.: Faceted knowledge representation (1999)
0.01
0.007095843 = product of:
0.014191686 = sum of:
0.014191686 = product of:
0.042575058 = sum of:
0.042575058 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042575058 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 17:30:31
-
OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax (2004)
0.01
0.0070558335 = product of:
0.014111667 = sum of:
0.014111667 = product of:
0.042335 = sum of:
0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 4683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042335 = score(doc=4683,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4683, 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=4683)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Editor
- Patel-Schneider, P.F., P. Hayes u . I. Horrocks
-
Giunchiglia, F.; Zaihrayeu, I.; Farazi, F.: Converting classifications into OWL ontologies (2009)
0.01
0.0070558335 = product of:
0.014111667 = sum of:
0.014111667 = product of:
0.042335 = sum of:
0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042335 = score(doc=4690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4690, 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=4690)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Halpin, H.; Hayes, P.J.; McCusker, J.P.; McGuinness, D.L.; Thompson, H.S.: When owl:sameAs isn't the same : an analysis of identity in linked data (2010)
0.01
0.0070558335 = product of:
0.014111667 = sum of:
0.014111667 = product of:
0.042335 = sum of:
0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 4703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042335 = score(doc=4703,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4703, 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=4703)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010. 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. Eds.: Peter F. Patel-Schneider et al
-
Schulz, S.; Schober, D.; Tudose, I.; Stenzhorn, H.: ¬The pitfalls of thesaurus ontologization : the case of the NCI thesaurus (2010)
0.01
0.0070558335 = product of:
0.014111667 = sum of:
0.014111667 = product of:
0.042335 = sum of:
0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 4885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042335 = score(doc=4885,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.044891298 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4885, 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=4885)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
