-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.04
0.036253117 = product of:
0.10875934 = sum of:
0.10875934 = sum of:
0.081224665 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.081224665 = score(doc=4200,freq=5.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.027534677 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027534677 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558
- Year
- 2010
-
Thelwall, M.; Wilkinson, D.: Public dialogs in social network sites : What is their purpose? (2010)
0.02
0.016244933 = product of:
0.048734795 = sum of:
0.048734795 = product of:
0.09746959 = sum of:
0.09746959 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09746959 = score(doc=3327,freq=5.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 3327, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3327)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.392-404
- Year
- 2010
-
Thelwall, M.; Klitkou, A.; Verbeek, A.; Stuart, D.; Vincent, C.: Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields (2010)
0.02
0.016244933 = product of:
0.048734795 = sum of:
0.048734795 = product of:
0.09746959 = sum of:
0.09746959 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09746959 = score(doc=3574,freq=5.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1464-1475
- Year
- 2010
-
Wilkinson, D.; Thelwall, M.: Social network site changes over time : the case of MySpace (2010)
0.02
0.01601772 = product of:
0.04805316 = sum of:
0.04805316 = product of:
0.09610632 = sum of:
0.09610632 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09610632 = score(doc=4106,freq=7.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.4943369 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
2.6457512 = tf(freq=7.0), with freq of:
7.0 = termFreq=7.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The uptake of social network sites (SNSs) has been highly trend-driven, with Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook being successively the most popular. Given that teens are often early adopters of communication technologies, it seems reasonable to assume that the typical user of any particular SNS would change over time, probably becoming older and covering different segments of the population. This article analyzes changes in MySpace self-reported member demographics and behavior from 2007 to 2010 using four large samples of members and focusing on the United States. The results indicate that despite its take-up rate declining, with only about 1 in 10 members being active a year after joining, the dominant (modal) age for active U.S. members remains midadolescence, but has shifted by about 2 years from 15 to 17, and the U.S. dominance of MySpace is shrinking. There also has been a dramatic increase in the median number of Friends for new U.S. members, from 12 to 96-probably due to MySpace's automated Friend Finder. Some factors show little change, however, including the female majority, the 5% minority gay membership, and the approximately 50% private profiles. In addition, there has been an increase in the proportion of Latino/Hispanic U.S. members, suggesting a shifting ethnic profile. Overall, MySpace has surprisingly stable membership demographics and is apparently maintaining its primary youth appeal, perhaps because of its music orientation.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.11, S.2311-2323
- Year
- 2010
-
Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? : Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics (2014)
0.01
0.01452991 = product of:
0.04358973 = sum of:
0.04358973 = product of:
0.08717946 = sum of:
0.08717946 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08717946 = score(doc=1258,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.4484203 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Journal-based citations are an important source of data for impact indices. However, the impact of journal articles extends beyond formal scholarly discourse. Measuring online scholarly impact calls for new indices, complementary to the older ones. This article examines a possible alternative metric source, blog posts aggregated at ResearchBlogging.org, which discuss peer-reviewed articles and provide full bibliographic references. Articles reviewed in these blogs therefore receive "blog citations." We hypothesized that articles receiving blog citations close to their publication time receive more journal citations later than the articles in the same journal published in the same year that did not receive such blog citations. Statistically significant evidence for articles published in 2009 and 2010 support this hypothesis for seven of 12 journals (58%) in 2009 and 13 of 19 journals (68%) in 2010. We suggest, based on these results, that blog citations can be used as an alternative metric source.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? : an exploratory study using image identification technology (2010)
0.01
0.013537444 = product of:
0.040612333 = sum of:
0.040612333 = product of:
0.081224665 = sum of:
0.081224665 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.081224665 = score(doc=3966,freq=5.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1734-1744
- Year
- 2010
-
Thelwall, M.; Wilkinson, D.; Uppal, S.: Data mining emotion in social network communication : gender differences in MySpace (2009)
0.01
0.010274198 = product of:
0.030822594 = sum of:
0.030822594 = product of:
0.061645187 = sum of:
0.061645187 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061645187 = score(doc=3322,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.31708103 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.190-199
-
Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014)
0.01
0.008561831 = product of:
0.025685493 = sum of:
0.025685493 = product of:
0.051370986 = sum of:
0.051370986 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051370986 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
-
Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: How is research blogged? : A content analysis approach (2015)
0.01
0.008561831 = product of:
0.025685493 = sum of:
0.025685493 = product of:
0.051370986 = sum of:
0.051370986 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051370986 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: SlideShare presentations, citations, users, and trends : a professional site with academic and educational uses (2017)
0.01
0.008561831 = product of:
0.025685493 = sum of:
0.025685493 = product of:
0.051370986 = sum of:
0.051370986 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051370986 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19441462 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.0073425802 = product of:
0.02202774 = sum of:
0.02202774 = product of:
0.04405548 = sum of:
0.04405548 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04405548 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.0064899856 = product of:
0.019469956 = sum of:
0.019469956 = product of:
0.038939912 = sum of:
0.038939912 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038939912 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:51
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.0055069355 = product of:
0.016520806 = sum of:
0.016520806 = product of:
0.03304161 = sum of:
0.03304161 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03304161 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.0055069355 = product of:
0.016520806 = sum of:
0.016520806 = product of:
0.03304161 = sum of:
0.03304161 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03304161 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.0055069355 = product of:
0.016520806 = sum of:
0.016520806 = product of:
0.03304161 = sum of:
0.03304161 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03304161 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.0055069355 = product of:
0.016520806 = sum of:
0.016520806 = product of:
0.03304161 = sum of:
0.03304161 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03304161 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
0.004589113 = product of:
0.013767338 = sum of:
0.013767338 = product of:
0.027534677 = sum of:
0.027534677 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027534677 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.00
0.004589113 = product of:
0.013767338 = sum of:
0.013767338 = product of:
0.027534677 = sum of:
0.027534677 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027534677 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.00
0.004589113 = product of:
0.013767338 = sum of:
0.013767338 = product of:
0.027534677 = sum of:
0.027534677 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027534677 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.00
0.004589113 = product of:
0.013767338 = sum of:
0.013767338 = product of:
0.027534677 = sum of:
0.027534677 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027534677 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14233442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04064573 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
