Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03702972 = product of:
  0.07405944 = sum of:
    0.056969248 = weight(_text_:communication in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056969248 = score(doc=5079,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.017090198 = product of:
      0.034180395 = sum of:
        0.034180395 = weight(_text_:networks in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034180395 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21802035 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.15677617 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.

0.028484624 = product of:
  0.113938496 = sum of:
    0.113938496 = weight(_text_:communication in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113938496 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.5724753 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Theories of information, communication and knowledge : a multidisciplinary approach. Eds.: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan u. T.M. Dousa

0.023737187 = product of:
  0.094948746 = sum of:
    0.094948746 = weight(_text_:communication in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094948746 = score(doc=4452,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.47706276 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 1971 UNISIST proposed a model for scientific and technical communication. This model has been widely cited and additional models have been added to the literature. There is a need to bring this model to the focus of information science (IS) research as well as to update and revise it. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons for this need. On the empirical side much has happened in the developments of electronic communication that needs to be considered. From a theoretical point of view the domain-analytic view has proposed that differences between different disciplines and domains should be emphasised. The original model only considered scientific and technical communication as a whole. There is a need both to compare with the humanities and social sciences and to regard internal differences in the sciences. There are also other reasons to reconsider and modify this model today. Offers not only a descriptive model, but also a theoretical perspective from which information systems may be understood and evaluated. In addition to this provides empirical exemplification and proposals for research initiatives.

0.016616032 = product of:
  0.066464126 = sum of:
    0.066464126 = weight(_text_:communication in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066464126 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.33394393 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Epistemological theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information seeking behaviour, on subject analysis, and on classification. They also have a fundamental impact on information retrieval, on the understanding of 'information', on the view of documents and their role in communication, on information selection, on theories about the functions of information systems and on the role of information professionals. Asserts that information science must be based on epistemological knowledge, which avoids blind alleys and is not outdated. Shows limitations in the dominant approaches to information science and proposes alternative viewpoints

0.016616032 = product of:
  0.066464126 = sum of:
    0.066464126 = weight(_text_:communication in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066464126 = score(doc=1853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.33394393 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Brief communication

0.016616032 = product of:
  0.066464126 = sum of:
    0.066464126 = weight(_text_:communication in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066464126 = score(doc=1118,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.33394393 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents a brief history of the term "information" and its different meanings, which are both important and difficult because the different meanings of the term imply whole theories of knowledge. The article further considers the relation between "information" and the concepts "matter and energy", "data", "sign and meaning", "knowledge" and "communication". It presents and analyses the influence of information in information studies and knowledge organization and contains a presentation and critical analysis of some compound terms such as "information need", "information overload" and "information retrieval", which illuminate the use of the term information in information studies. An appendix provides a chronological list of definitions of information.

0.014242312 = product of:
  0.056969248 = sum of:
    0.056969248 = weight(_text_:communication in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056969248 = score(doc=4464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domain-specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways, producing special classifications and thesauri; research an indexing and retrieving specialities, empirical user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies; epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication; and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed

0.009494875 = product of:
  0.0379795 = sum of:
    0.0379795 = weight(_text_:communication in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0379795 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.1908251 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

0.007121156 = product of:
  0.028484624 = sum of:
    0.028484624 = weight(_text_:communication in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028484624 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.14311883 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).

0.0059342966 = product of:
  0.023737187 = sum of:
    0.023737187 = weight(_text_:communication in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023737187 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.11926569 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.

0.0054644486 = product of:
  0.021857794 = sum of:
    0.021857794 = product of:
      0.04371559 = sum of:
        0.04371559 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04371559 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.0054644486 = product of:
  0.021857794 = sum of:
    0.021857794 = product of:
      0.04371559 = sum of:
        0.04371559 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04371559 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.22-36

0.004683813 = product of:
  0.018735252 = sum of:
    0.018735252 = product of:
      0.037470505 = sum of:
        0.037470505 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037470505 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0039031778 = product of:
  0.015612711 = sum of:
    0.015612711 = product of:
      0.031225422 = sum of:
        0.031225422 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031225422 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0039031778 = product of:
  0.015612711 = sum of:
    0.015612711 = product of:
      0.031225422 = sum of:
        0.031225422 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031225422 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0039031778 = product of:
  0.015612711 = sum of:
    0.015612711 = product of:
      0.031225422 = sum of:
        0.031225422 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031225422 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.0019515889 = product of:
  0.0078063556 = sum of:
    0.0078063556 = product of:
      0.015612711 = sum of:
        0.015612711 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015612711 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27