Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

0.11746098 = product of:
  0.23492196 = sum of:
    0.05873049 = product of:
      0.17619146 = sum of:
        0.17619146 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17619146 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.17619146 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17619146 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.10263428 = product of:
  0.20526856 = sum of:
    0.039153658 = product of:
      0.11746097 = sum of:
        0.11746097 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11746097 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.1661149 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1661149 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.078307316 = product of:
  0.15661463 = sum of:
    0.039153658 = product of:
      0.11746097 = sum of:
        0.11746097 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11746097 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.11746097 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11746097 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.028653976 = product of:
  0.1146159 = sum of:
    0.1146159 = weight(_text_:evolution in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1146159 = score(doc=3276,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.5852004 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: 1. From classifications to ontologies Knowledge - A new concept of knowledge - Knowledge and information - Knowledge organisation - Knowledge organisation and representation - Cognitive sciences - Talent management - Learning systematisation - Historical evolution - From classification to knowledge organisation - Why ontologies exist - Ontologies - The structure of ontologies 2. Taxonomies and thesauri From ordering to taxonomy - The origins of taxonomy - Hierarchical and horizontal order - Correlation with classifications - Taxonomy in computer science - Computing taxonomy - Definitions - Virtual taxonomy, cybernetic taxonomy - Taxonomy in Information Science - Similarities between taxonomies and thesauri - ifferences between taxonomies and thesauri 3. Thesauri Terminology in classification systems - Terminological languages - Thesauri - Thesauri definitions - Conditions that a thesaurus must fulfil - Historical evolution - Classes of thesauri 4. Thesauri in (cladist) systematics Systematics - Systematics as a noun - Definitions and historic evolution over time - Differences between taxonomy and systematics - Systematics in thesaurus construction theory - Classic, numerical and cladist systematics - Classic systematics in information science - Numerical systematics in information science - Thesauri in cladist systematics - Systematics in information technology - Some examples 5. Thesauri in systems theory Historical evolution - Approach to systems - Systems theory applied to the construction of thesauri - Components - Classes of system - Peculiarities of these systems - Working methods - Systems theory applied to ontologies and taxonomies

0.024815073 = product of:
  0.09926029 = sum of:
    0.09926029 = weight(_text_:evolution in 847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09926029 = score(doc=847,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.5067985 = fieldWeight in 847, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=847)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present descriptive characteristics of the historical development of concept networks. The linguistic principles, mechanisms and motivations behind the evolution of concept networks are discussed. Implications emanating from the idea of the historical development of concept networks are discussed in relation to knowledge representation and organization schemes. Design/methodology/approach - Natural language data including both speech and text are analyzed by examining discourse contexts in which a linguistic element such as a polysemy or homonym occurs. Linguistic literature on the historical development of concept networks is reviewed and analyzed. Findings - Semantic sense relations in concept networks can be captured in a systematic and regular manner. The mechanism and impetus behind the process of concept network development suggest that semantic senses in concept networks are closely intertwined with pragmatic contexts and discourse structure. The interrelation and permeability of the semantic senses of concept networks are captured on a continuum scale based on three linguistic parameters: concrete shared semantic sense; discourse and text structure; and contextualized pragmatic information. Research limitations/implications - Research findings signify the critical need for linking discourse structure and contextualized pragmatic information to knowledge representation and organization schemes. Originality/value - The idea of linguistic characteristics, principles, motivation and mechanisms underlying the evolution of concept networks provides theoretical ground for developing a model for integrating knowledge representation and organization schemes with discourse structure and contextualized pragmatic information.

0.024815073 = product of:
  0.09926029 = sum of:
    0.09926029 = weight(_text_:evolution in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09926029 = score(doc=592,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.5067985 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.024313705 = product of:
  0.09725482 = sum of:
    0.09725482 = weight(_text_:evolution in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09725482 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.49655905 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.020261422 = product of:
  0.08104569 = sum of:
    0.08104569 = weight(_text_:evolution in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08104569 = score(doc=593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.017192384 = product of:
  0.06876954 = sum of:
    0.06876954 = weight(_text_:evolution in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06876954 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Within the knowledge organization systems (KOS) set, the term "ontology" is paradigmatic of the terminological ambiguity in different typologies. Contributing to this situation is the indiscriminate association of the term "ontology", both as a specific type of KOS and as a process of categorization, due to the interdisciplinary use of the term with different meanings. We present a systematization of the perspectives of different authors of ontologies, as representational artifacts, seeking to contribute to terminological clarification. Focusing the analysis on the intention, semantics and modulation of ontologies, it was possible to notice two broad perspectives regarding ontologies as artifacts that coexist in the knowledge organization systems spectrum. We have ontologies viewed, on the one hand, as an evolution in terms of complexity of traditional conceptual systems, and on the other hand, as a system that organizes ontological rather than epistemological knowledge. The focus of ontological analysis is the item to model and not the intentions that motivate the construction of the system.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 2544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=2544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 2544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2544)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In information systems that support knowledge-discovery applications such as scientific exploration, reliance on highly structured ontologies as data-organization aids can be limiting. With current computational aids to science work, the human knowledge that creates meaning out of analyses is often only recorded when work reaches publication-or worse, left unrecorded altogether-for lack of an ontological model for scientific concepts that can capture knowledge as it is created and used. We argue for an approach to representing scientific concepts that reflects (1) the situated processes of science work, (2) the social construction of knowledge, and (3) the emergence and evolution of understanding over time. In this model, knowledge is the result of collaboration, negotiation, and manipulation by teams of researchers. Capturing the situations in which knowledge is created and used helps these collaborators discover areas of agreement and discord, while allowing individual inquirers to maintain different perspectives on the same information. The capture of provenance information allows historical trails of reasoning to be reconstructed, allowing end users to evaluate the utility and trustworthiness of knowledge representations. We present a proof-of-concept system, called Codex, based on this situated knowledge model. Codex supports visualization of knowledge structures through concept mapping, and enables inference across those structures. The proof-of-concept is deployed in the domain of geoscience to support distributed teams of learners and researchers.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 3084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=3084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 3084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3084)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontologies have moved beyond the domains of library science, philosophy, and knowledge representation. They are now the concerns of marketing departments, CEOs, and mainstream business. Research analyst companies such as Forrester Research report on the critical roles of ontologies in support of browsing and search for e-commerce and in support of interoperability for facilitation of knowledge management and configuration. One now sees ontologies used as central controlled vocabularies that are integrated into catalogues, databases, web publications, knowledge management applications, etc. Large ontologies are essential components in many online applications including search (such as Yahoo and Lycos), e-commerce (such as Amazon and eBay), configuration (such as Dell and PC-Order), etc. One also sees ontologies that have long life spans, sometimes in multiple projects (such as UMLS, SIC codes, etc.). Such diverse usage generates many implications for ontology environments. In this paper, we will discuss ontologies and requirements in their current instantiations on the web today. We will describe some desirable properties of ontologies. We will also discuss how both simple and complex ontologies are being and may be used to support varied applications. We will conclude with a discussion of emerging trends in ontologies and their environments and briefly mention our evolving ontology evolution environment.

0.01146159 = product of:
  0.04584636 = sum of:
    0.04584636 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04584636 = score(doc=4402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontologies need to be stored, sometimes aligned and their evolution needs to be managed. All these tasks together are called ontology management. Alignment is a central task in ontology re-use. Re-use of existing ontologies often requires considerable effort: the ontologies either need to be integrated, which means that they are merged into one new ontology, or the ontologies can be kept separate. In both cases, the ontologies have to be aligned, which means that they have to be brought into mutual agreement. The problems that underlie the difficulties in integrating and aligning are the mismatches that may exist between separate ontologies. Ontologies can differ at the language level, which can mean that they are represented in a different syntax, or that the expressiveness of the ontology language is dissimilar. Ontologies also can have mismatches at the model level, for example, in the paradigm, or modelling style. Ontology alignment is very relevant in a Semantic Web context. The Semantic Web will provide us with a lot of freely accessible domain specific ontologies. To form a real web of semantics - which will allow computers to combine and infer implicit knowledge - those separate ontologies should be aligned and linked.

0.008104568 = product of:
  0.032418273 = sum of:
    0.032418273 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032418273 = score(doc=4472,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.16551968 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since its appearance in the early 90's, the World Wide Web (WWW or Web) has provided universal access to knowledge and the world of information has been primarily witness to a great revolution (the digital revolution). It quickly became very popular, making it the largest and most comprehensive database and knowledge base thanks to the amount and diversity of data it contains. However, the considerable increase and evolution of these data raises important problems for users, in particular for accessing the documents most relevant to their search queries. In order to cope with this exponential explosion of data volume and facilitate their access by users, various models are offered by information retrieval systems (IRS) for the representation and retrieval of web documents. Traditional SRIs use simple keywords that are not semantically linked to index and retrieve these documents. This creates limitations in terms of the relevance and ease of exploration of results. To overcome these limitations, existing techniques enrich documents by integrating external keywords from different sources. However, these systems still suffer from limitations that are related to the exploitation techniques of these sources of enrichment. When the different sources are used so that they cannot be distinguished by the system, this limits the flexibility of the exploration models that can be applied to the results returned by this system. Users then feel lost to these results, and find themselves forced to filter them manually to select the relevant information. If they want to go further, they must reformulate and target their search queries even more until they reach the documents that best meet their expectations. In this way, even if the systems manage to find more relevant results, their presentation remains problematic. In order to target research to more user-specific information needs and improve the relevance and exploration of its research findings, advanced SRIs adopt different data personalization techniques that assume that current research of user is directly related to his profile and / or previous browsing / search experiences.
However, this assumption does not hold in all cases, the needs of the user evolve over time and can move away from his previous interests stored in his profile. In other cases, the user's profile may be misused to extract or infer new information needs. This problem is much more accentuated with ambiguous queries. When multiple POIs linked to a search query are identified in the user's profile, the system is unable to select the relevant data from that profile to respond to that request. This has a direct impact on the quality of the results provided to this user. In order to overcome some of these limitations, in this research thesis, we have been interested in the development of techniques aimed mainly at improving the relevance of the results of current SRIs and facilitating the exploration of major collections of documents. To do this, we propose a solution based on a new concept and model of indexing and information retrieval called multi-spaces projection. This proposal is based on the exploitation of different categories of semantic and social information that enrich the universe of document representation and search queries in several dimensions of interpretations. The originality of this representation is to be able to distinguish between the different interpretations used for the description and the search for documents. This gives a better visibility on the results returned and helps to provide a greater flexibility of search and exploration, giving the user the ability to navigate one or more views of data that interest him the most. In addition, the proposed multidimensional representation universes for document description and search query interpretation help to improve the relevance of the user's results by providing a diversity of research / exploration that helps meet his diverse needs and those of other different users. This study exploits different aspects that are related to the personalized search and aims to solve the problems caused by the evolution of the information needs of the user. Thus, when the profile of this user is used by our system, a technique is proposed and used to identify the interests most representative of his current needs in his profile. This technique is based on the combination of three influential factors, including the contextual, frequency and temporal factor of the data. The ability of users to interact, exchange ideas and opinions, and form social networks on the Web, has led systems to focus on the types of interactions these users have at the level of interaction between them as well as their social roles in the system. This social information is discussed and integrated into this research work. The impact and how they are integrated into the IR process are studied to improve the relevance of the results.

0.0041749803 = product of:
  0.016699921 = sum of:
    0.016699921 = product of:
      0.050099764 = sum of:
        0.050099764 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050099764 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.11-22

0.0041749803 = product of:
  0.016699921 = sum of:
    0.016699921 = product of:
      0.050099764 = sum of:
        0.050099764 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050099764 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.0041749803 = product of:
  0.016699921 = sum of:
    0.016699921 = product of:
      0.050099764 = sum of:
        0.050099764 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050099764 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.0041749803 = product of:
  0.016699921 = sum of:
    0.016699921 = product of:
      0.050099764 = sum of:
        0.050099764 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050099764 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, 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=3406)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.0041749803 = product of:
  0.016699921 = sum of:
    0.016699921 = product of:
      0.050099764 = sum of:
        0.050099764 = weight(_text_:22 in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050099764 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4523, 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=4523)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.1, S.22-27

0.0035425886 = product of:
  0.014170354 = sum of:
    0.014170354 = product of:
      0.04251106 = sum of:
        0.04251106 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04251106 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:54:03
22. 1.2017 17:10:56

0.0033399842 = product of:
  0.013359937 = sum of:
    0.013359937 = product of:
      0.04007981 = sum of:
        0.04007981 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04007981 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22