Search (184 results, page 1 of 10)

0.17598873 = product of:
  0.35197747 = sum of:
    0.35197747 = sum of:
      0.2549574 = weight(_text_:2007 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2549574 = score(doc=6091,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          1.261851 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
              5.0 = termFreq=5.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.09702007 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09702007 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

Year

2007

0.08799437 = product of:
  0.17598873 = sum of:
    0.17598873 = sum of:
      0.1274787 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1274787 = score(doc=1144,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.6309255 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
            2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
              5.0 = termFreq=5.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
      0.048510034 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048510034 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.12.2007 11:22:39

Source

¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez

Year

2007

0.06373935 = product of:
  0.1274787 = sum of:
    0.1274787 = product of:
      0.2549574 = sum of:
        0.2549574 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2549574 = score(doc=4680,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            1.261851 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

Year

2007

0.0564964 = product of:
  0.1129928 = sum of:
    0.1129928 = sum of:
      0.07054652 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07054652 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.34915322 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, 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=4187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:53:00

0.05596056 = product of:
  0.11192112 = sum of:
    0.11192112 = sum of:
      0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06046845 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.051452663 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051452663 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.05499648 = product of:
  0.10999296 = sum of:
    0.10999296 = sum of:
      0.079674184 = weight(_text_:2007 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.079674184 = score(doc=586,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.39432842 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
              5.0 = termFreq=5.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644

Year

2007

0.05499648 = product of:
  0.10999296 = sum of:
    0.10999296 = sum of:
      0.079674184 = weight(_text_:2007 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.079674184 = score(doc=875,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.39432842 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
            2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
              5.0 = termFreq=5.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23.12.2007 19:22:21

Source

B.I.T.online. 10(2007) H.2, S.xxx-xxx

Year

2007

0.04842549 = product of:
  0.09685098 = sum of:
    0.09685098 = sum of:
      0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06046845 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
      0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036382522 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.047804512 = product of:
  0.095609024 = sum of:
    0.095609024 = product of:
      0.19121805 = sum of:
        0.19121805 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19121805 = score(doc=4479,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.94638824 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.2145-2156

Year

2007

0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33

0.039837092 = product of:
  0.079674184 = sum of:
    0.079674184 = product of:
      0.15934837 = sum of:
        0.15934837 = weight(_text_:2007 in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15934837 = score(doc=521,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.78865683 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1551-1552

Year

2007

0.032068238 = product of:
  0.064136475 = sum of:
    0.064136475 = product of:
      0.12827295 = sum of:
        0.12827295 = weight(_text_:2007 in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12827295 = score(doc=624,freq=9.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.63485646 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
              3.0 = tf(freq=9.0), with freq of:
                9.0 = termFreq=9.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a recent article (Burrell, 2006), the author pointed out that the version of Lorenz concentration theory presented by Egghe (2005a, 2005b) does not conform to the classical statistical/econometric approach. Rousseau (2007) asserts confusion on our part and a failure to grasp Egghe's construction, even though we simply reported what Egghe stated. Here the author shows that Egghe's construction rather than including the standard case, as claimed by Rousseau, actually leads to the Leimkuhler curve of the dual function, in the sense of Egghe. (Note that here we distinguish between the Lorenz curve, a convex form arising from ranking from smallest to largest, and the Leimkuhler curve, a concave form arising from ranking from largest to smallest. The two presentations are equivalent. See Burrell, 1991, 2005; Rousseau, 2007.)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.2157-2159

Year

2007

0.031869676 = product of:
  0.06373935 = sum of:
    0.06373935 = product of:
      0.1274787 = sum of:
        0.1274787 = weight(_text_:2007 in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1274787 = score(doc=147,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.6309255 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.3, S.452-454

Year

2007

0.027885964 = product of:
  0.05577193 = sum of:
    0.05577193 = product of:
      0.11154386 = sum of:
        0.11154386 = weight(_text_:2007 in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11154386 = score(doc=50,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.55205977 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.777-785

Year

2007

0.027885964 = product of:
  0.05577193 = sum of:
    0.05577193 = product of:
      0.11154386 = sum of:
        0.11154386 = weight(_text_:2007 in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11154386 = score(doc=477,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.55205977 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1381-1385

Year

2007

0.027885964 = product of:
  0.05577193 = sum of:
    0.05577193 = product of:
      0.11154386 = sum of:
        0.11154386 = weight(_text_:2007 in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11154386 = score(doc=635,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.55205977 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 58(2007) H.6/7, S.371-375

Year

2007

0.025195187 = product of:
  0.050390374 = sum of:
    0.050390374 = product of:
      0.10078075 = sum of:
        0.10078075 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10078075 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.49879032 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I studied the distribution of articles and citations in journals between 1998 and 2007 according to an empirical function with two exponents. These variables showed good fit to a beta function with two exponents.

0.024941966 = product of:
  0.049883932 = sum of:
    0.049883932 = product of:
      0.099767864 = sum of:
        0.099767864 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099767864 = score(doc=2622,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.49377728 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we analyze the citations to articles published in 11 biological and medical journals from 2003 to 2007 that employ author-choice open-access models. Controlling for known explanatory predictors of citations, only 2 of the 11 journals show positive and significant open-access effects. Analyzing all journals together, we report a small but significant increase in article citations of 17%. In addition, there is strong evidence to suggest that the open-access advantage is declining by about 7% per year, from 32% in 2004 to 11% in 2007.

0.024255017 = product of:
  0.048510034 = sum of:
    0.048510034 = product of:
      0.09702007 = sum of:
        0.09702007 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09702007 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.024255017 = product of:
  0.048510034 = sum of:
    0.048510034 = product of:
      0.09702007 = sum of:
        0.09702007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09702007 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22