-
Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005)
0.04
0.036582813 = product of:
0.073165625 = sum of:
0.073165625 = sum of:
0.030711137 = weight(_text_:technology in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030711137 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
0.042454492 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042454492 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 6.2005 13:16:22
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882
-
White, H.; Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.: HIVEing : the effect of a semantic web technology on inter-indexer consistency (2014)
0.04
0.035786085 = product of:
0.07157217 = sum of:
0.07157217 = sum of:
0.036193423 = weight(_text_:technology in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036193423 = score(doc=1781,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
0.035378743 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035378743 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960)
0.02
0.021227246 = product of:
0.042454492 = sum of:
0.042454492 = product of:
0.084908985 = sum of:
0.084908985 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084908985 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
-
Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996)
0.01
0.014151498 = product of:
0.028302995 = sum of:
0.028302995 = product of:
0.05660599 = sum of:
0.05660599 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05660599 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
-
Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.01
0.01238256 = product of:
0.02476512 = sum of:
0.02476512 = product of:
0.04953024 = sum of:
0.04953024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04953024 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
-
Neshat, N.; Horri, A.: ¬A study of subject indexing consistency between the National Library of Iran and Humanities Libraries in the area of Iranian studies (2006)
0.01
0.01238256 = product of:
0.02476512 = sum of:
0.02476512 = product of:
0.04953024 = sum of:
0.04953024 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04953024 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4. 1.2007 10:22:26
-
Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000)
0.01
0.010613623 = product of:
0.021227246 = sum of:
0.021227246 = product of:
0.042454492 = sum of:
0.042454492 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042454492 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
-
Chan, L.M.: Inter-indexer consistency in subject cataloging (1989)
0.01
0.010237046 = product of:
0.020474091 = sum of:
0.020474091 = product of:
0.040948182 = sum of:
0.040948182 = weight(_text_:technology in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040948182 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information technology and libraries. 8(1989), S.349-358
-
Huffman, G.D.; Vital, D.A.; Bivins, R.G.: Generating indices with lexical association methods : term uniqueness (1990)
0.01
0.009048356 = product of:
0.018096711 = sum of:
0.018096711 = product of:
0.036193423 = sum of:
0.036193423 = weight(_text_:technology in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036193423 = score(doc=4152,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A software system has been developed which orders citations retrieved from an online database in terms of relevancy. The system resulted from an effort generated by NASA's Technology Utilization Program to create new advanced software tools to largely automate the process of determining relevancy of database citations retrieved to support large technology transfer studies. The ranking is based on the generation of an enriched vocabulary using lexical association methods, a user assessment of the vocabulary and a combination of the user assessment and the lexical metric. One of the key elements in relevancy ranking is the enriched vocabulary -the terms mst be both unique and descriptive. This paper examines term uniqueness. Six lexical association methods were employed to generate characteristic word indices. A limited subset of the terms - the highest 20,40,60 and 7,5% of the uniquess words - we compared and uniquess factors developed. Computational times were also measured. It was found that methods based on occurrences and signal produced virtually the same terms. The limited subset of terms producedby the exact and centroid discrimination value were also nearly identical. Unique terms sets were produced by teh occurrence, variance and discrimination value (centroid), An end-user evaluation showed that the generated terms were largely distinct and had values of word precision which were consistent with values of the search precision.
-
Gil-Leiva, I.; Alonso-Arroyo, A.: Keywords given by authors of scientific articles in database descriptors (2007)
0.01
0.009048356 = product of:
0.018096711 = sum of:
0.018096711 = product of:
0.036193423 = sum of:
0.036193423 = weight(_text_:technology in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036193423 = score(doc=211,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this article, the authors analyze the keywords given by authors of scientific articles and the descriptors assigned to the articles to ascertain the presence of the keywords in the descriptors. Six-hundred forty INSPEC (Information Service for Physics, Engineering, and Computing), CAB (Current Agriculture Bibliography) abstracts, ISTA (Information Science and Technology Abstracts), and LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) database records were consulted. After detailed comparisons, it was found that keywords provided by authors have an important presence in the database descriptors studied; nearly 25% of all the keywords appeared in exactly the same form as descriptors, with another 21% though normalized, still detected in the descriptors. This means that almost 46% of keywords appear in the descriptors, either as such or after normalization. Elsewhere, three distinct indexing policies appear, one represented by INSPEC and LISA (indexers seem to have freedom to assign the descriptors they deem necessary); another is represented by CAB (no record has fewer than four descriptors and, in general, a large number of descriptors is employed). In contrast, in ISTA, a certain institutional code exists towards economy in indexing because 84% of records contain only four descriptors.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1175-1187
-
Lu, K.; Mao, J.; Li, G.: Toward effective automated weighted subject indexing : a comparison of different approaches in different environments (2018)
0.01
0.009048356 = product of:
0.018096711 = sum of:
0.018096711 = product of:
0.036193423 = sum of:
0.036193423 = weight(_text_:technology in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036193423 = score(doc=4292,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Subject indexing plays an important role in supporting subject access to information resources. Current subject indexing systems do not make adequate distinctions on the importance of assigned subject descriptors. Assigning numeric weights to subject descriptors to distinguish their importance to the documents can strengthen the role of subject metadata. Automated methods are more cost-effective. This study compares different automated weighting methods in different environments. Two evaluation methods were used to assess the performance. Experiments on three datasets in the biomedical domain suggest the performance of different weighting methods depends on whether it is an abstract or full text environment. Mutual information with bag-of-words representation shows the best average performance in the full text environment, while cosine with bag-of-words representation is the best in an abstract environment. The cosine measure has relatively consistent and robust performance. A direct weighting method, IDF (Inverse Document Frequency), can produce quick and reasonable estimates of the weights. Bag-of-words representation generally outperforms the concept-based representation. Further improvement in performance can be obtained by using the learning-to-rank method to integrate different weighting methods. This study follows up Lu and Mao (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1776-1784, 2015), in which an automated weighted subject indexing method was proposed and validated. The findings from this study contribute to more effective weighted subject indexing.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.121-133
-
Tseng, Y.-H.: Keyword extraction techniques and relevance feedback (1997)
0.01
0.008957415 = product of:
0.01791483 = sum of:
0.01791483 = product of:
0.03582966 = sum of:
0.03582966 = weight(_text_:technology in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03582966 = score(doc=1830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Automatic keyword extraction is an important and fundamental technology in an advanced information retrieval systems. Briefly compares several major keyword extraction methods, lists their advantages and disadvantages, and reports recent research progress in Taiwan. Also describes the application of a keyword extraction algorithm in an information retrieval system for relevance feedback. Preliminary analysis shows that the error rate of extracting relevant keywords is 18%, and that the precision rate is over 50%. The main disadvantage of this approach is that the extraction results depend on the retrieval results, which in turn depend on the data held by the database. Apart from collecting more data, this problem can be alleviated by the application of a thesaurus constructed by the same keyword extraction algorithm
-
Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006)
0.01
0.008844686 = product of:
0.017689371 = sum of:
0.017689371 = product of:
0.035378743 = sum of:
0.035378743 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035378743 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Westerman, S.J.; Cribbin, T.; Collins, J.: Human assessments of document similarity (2010)
0.01
0.007677784 = product of:
0.015355568 = sum of:
0.015355568 = product of:
0.030711137 = sum of:
0.030711137 = weight(_text_:technology in 3915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030711137 = score(doc=3915,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3915, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3915)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1535-1542
-
Bodoff, D.; Richter-Levin, Y.: Viewpoints in indexing term assignment (2020)
0.01
0.007677784 = product of:
0.015355568 = sum of:
0.015355568 = product of:
0.030711137 = sum of:
0.030711137 = weight(_text_:technology in 5765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030711137 = score(doc=5765,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5765, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5765)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.4, S.450-461
-
Rowley, J.: ¬The controlled versus natural indexing languages debate revisited : a perspective on information retrieval practice and research (1994)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=7151,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases
-
Wolfram, D.; Zhang, J.: ¬An investigation of the influence of indexing exhaustivity and term distributions on a document space (2002)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 5238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=5238,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5238, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5238)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.944-952
-
Lee, D.H.; Schleyer, T.: Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing : a comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers (2012)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1747-1757
-
Lu, K.; Mao, J.: ¬An automatic approach to weighted subject indexing : an empirical study in the biomedical domain (2015)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 4005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=4005,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4005, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4005)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1776-1784
-
Peset, F.; Garzón-Farinós, F.; González, L.M.; García-Massó, X.; Ferrer-Sapena, A.; Toca-Herrera, J.L.; Sánchez-Pérez, E.A.: Survival analysis of author keywords : an application to the library and information sciences area (2020)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=5774,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.4, S.462-473
