Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  1. Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015) 0.03 
    0.029778086 = product of:
  0.11911234 = sum of:
    0.11911234 = weight(_text_:evolution in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11911234 = score(doc=2337,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.6081582 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.
  2. Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018) 0.03 
    0.026263164 = product of:
  0.05252633 = sum of:
    0.04584636 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04584636 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 4631, 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=4631)
    0.0066799684 = product of:
      0.020039905 = sum of:
        0.020039905 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020039905 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  3. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: How quickly do publications get read? : the evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles (2018) 0.01 
    0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=4015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 4015, 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=4015)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  4. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.01 
    0.005904314 = product of:
  0.023617256 = sum of:
    0.023617256 = product of:
      0.070851766 = sum of:
        0.070851766 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070851766 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  5. Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015) 0.01 
    0.005009976 = product of:
  0.020039905 = sum of:
    0.020039905 = product of:
      0.060119715 = sum of:
        0.060119715 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060119715 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4208)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    7. 4.2015 17:22:03
  6. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.00 
    0.0033399842 = product of:
  0.013359937 = sum of:
    0.013359937 = product of:
      0.04007981 = sum of:
        0.04007981 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04007981 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
  7. Müller, S.: Schattenbibliotheken : Welche Auswirkungen haben Sci-Hub und Co. auf Verlage und Bibliotheken? (2019) 0.00 
    0.0029224863 = product of:
  0.011689945 = sum of:
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 765, 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=765)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404
  8. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.00 
    0.0029224863 = product of:
  0.011689945 = sum of:
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:23:07
  9. Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018) 0.00 
    0.0029224863 = product of:
  0.011689945 = sum of:
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3909, 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=3909)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:39
  10. Hrachovec, H.: Offen gesagt: Beschwerden eines Archivars (2018) 0.00 
    0.0029224863 = product of:
  0.011689945 = sum of:
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=4443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4443, 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=4443)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:52
  11. Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019) 0.00 
    0.002504988 = product of:
  0.010019952 = sum of:
    0.010019952 = product of:
      0.030059857 = sum of:
        0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030059857 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5631, 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=5631)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
  12. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.00 
    0.002504988 = product of:
  0.010019952 = sum of:
    0.010019952 = product of:
      0.030059857 = sum of:
        0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030059857 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    1. 1.2020 13:22:34
  13. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.00 
    0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
  14. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  15. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.00 
    0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  16. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.00 
    0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
  17. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.00 
    0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  18. Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017) 0.00 
    0.0016699921 = product of:
  0.0066799684 = sum of:
    0.0066799684 = product of:
      0.020039905 = sum of:
        0.020039905 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020039905 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.
  19. Brown, D.J.: Access to scientific research : challenges facing communications in STM (2016) 0.00 
    0.0016699921 = product of:
  0.0066799684 = sum of:
    0.0066799684 = product of:
      0.020039905 = sum of:
        0.020039905 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020039905 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Inhalt: Chapter 1. Background -- Chapter 2. Definitions -- Chapter 3. Aims, Objectives, and Methodology -- Chapter 4. Setting the Scene -- Chapter 5. Information Society -- Chapter 6. Drivers for Change -- Chapter 7 A Dysfunctional STM Scene? -- Chapter 8. Comments on the Dysfunctionality of STM Publishing -- Chapter 9. The Main Stakeholders -- Chapter 10. Search and Discovery -- Chapter 11. Impact of Google -- Chapter 12. Psychological Issues -- Chapter 13. Users of Research Output -- Chapter 14. Underlying Sociological Developments -- Chapter 15. Social Media and Social Networking -- Chapter 16. Forms of Article Delivery -- Chapter 17. Future Communication Trends -- Chapter 18. Academic Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 19. Unaffiliated Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 20. The Professions -- Chapter 21. Small and Medium Enterprises -- Chapter 22. Citizen Scientists -- Chapter 23. Learned Societies -- Chapter 24. Business Models -- Chapter 25. Open Access -- Chapter 26. Political Initiatives -- Chapter 27. Summary and Conclusions -- Chapter 28. Research Questions Addressed
  20. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.00 
    0.0016699921 = product of:
  0.0066799684 = sum of:
    0.0066799684 = product of:
      0.020039905 = sum of:
        0.020039905 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020039905 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 10
  • d 9

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications