Search (240 results, page 1 of 12)

0.053414337 = product of:
  0.106828675 = sum of:
    0.106828675 = sum of:
      0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06366988 = score(doc=211,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 211, 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=211)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Professional librarians operate in an environment characterized by a high level of change. In order to respond to this information environment, it is essential for science and engineering librarians to keep pace with the staggering growth in research information and resources, and with the heightened expectation of the populations with which they interact. The paradox of the need for subject specificity coupled with the need for diversity of subject knowledge presents reference librarians with an unusual challenge. Continuing education programs that are woven into the fabric of job responsibilities can be utilized effectively to enhance the abilities of reference librarians and the quality of services delivered. In this article, Cromer and Testi present a model of a structured, integrated continuing education program for reference librarians utilized at the University of New Mexico's Centennial Science and Engineering Library

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.4, S.51-58

0.053414337 = product of:
  0.106828675 = sum of:
    0.106828675 = sum of:
      0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06366988 = score(doc=6523,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6523, 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=6523)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Currently, few resources exist to guide libraries in the cataloguing of community information using the new USMARC Format for Cammunity Information (1993). In developing a community information database, Queens Borough Public Library, New York City, formulated their own cataloguing procedures for applying AACR2, LoC File Interpretations, and USMARC Format for Community Information to community information. Their practices include entering corporate names directly whenever possible and assigning LC subject headings for classes of persons and topics, adding neighbourhood level geographic subdivisions. The guidelines were specially designed to aid non cataloguers in cataloguing community information and have enabled library to maintain consistency in handling corporate names and in assigning subject headings, while creating database that is highly accessible to library staff and users

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.51-69

0.045783717 = product of:
  0.091567434 = sum of:
    0.091567434 = sum of:
      0.054574184 = weight(_text_:subject in 3654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054574184 = score(doc=3654,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 3654, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3654)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 3654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=3654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3654, 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=3654)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The emergence of research on various aspects of 'information behaviour' is explored and its growth as a subject of academic research is documented. The origin of the field as a potential aid to the development of library and information services is noted, as is the transition from this status to that of a subject for research at PhD level and beyond. The development of the field has thus led to a division between the needs of academia for theoretically grounded work, and the needs of the field of practice for guidance for service development. There is, today, a disconnection between research and practice, to a significant extent: early research was undertaken by practitioners but today academic research dominates the scene. Suggestions are made as to how this disconnection can be repaired.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:09:22

0.0440901 = product of:
  0.0881802 = sum of:
    0.0881802 = sum of:
      0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045021407 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3809, 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=3809)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In some areas of librarianship, such as cataloguing and subject classification, there are established rulebooks to guide librarians in their work. Information librarians however have no such aid; their metier is more an art than a profession, since reader queries may concern any aspect of human knowledge. After analysing hundreds of information library reader requests; G. Jahoda and colleagues have sought to formulate self-operating rules for interpreting such queries, utilising the 2 basic elements - what is 'known' and what is 'required' - contained in each request. Lists the categories into which each element breaks down. When presented in matrix form these can indicate the type of reference work to consult to resolve any reader queries

Date

6. 4.1996 13:22:31

0.037877556 = product of:
  0.07575511 = sum of:
    0.07575511 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=4720,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4720, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4720)
      0.043596964 = weight(_text_:22 in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043596964 = score(doc=4720,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4720, 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=4720)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article characterises the questioning behaviour in reference interviews preceding delegated online searches of bibliographic databases and relates it to questioning behaviour in other types of interviews/settings. With one exception, the unit of analysis is the question (N=610), not the interview. The author uses A.C. Graesser's typology of questions to analyse type of question and M.D. White's typology of information categories to determine the question's content objective; this is the first application of Graesser's typology to interview questions in any setting. Graesser's categories allow for a more subtle understanding of the kind of information need underlying a question. Comparisons are made between questions asked by the information specialist and those asked by the client. Findings show that the information specialist dominates the interview, about half the questions were verification questions and about 22% were judgemental questions or requests; all but four types of questions from Graesser's categories appeared in the interviews, but no new question types were discovered. Clients often phrase questions as requests. In content, both clients and information specialists focus on the subject and service requested, but the clients ask also about search strategy and output features. Both parties ask predominantly short-answer questions. Results are related to interface design for retrieval systems.

Date

2.12.2005 14:48:22

0.03638279 = product of:
  0.07276558 = sum of:
    0.07276558 = product of:
      0.14553116 = sum of:
        0.14553116 = weight(_text_:subject in 8691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14553116 = score(doc=8691,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.894149 = fieldWeight in 8691, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=8691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03149293 = product of:
  0.06298586 = sum of:
    0.06298586 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 189, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=189)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 189, 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=189)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Almost 30 years ago, Taylor (1968) postulated that each information need moves along a continuum from the visceral need through the compromised need. The current study examines the final transition in this continuum: from formalized need (expressed in an explicit verbal statement) to compromised need (represented in the language of the retrieval system). This transition is primarily concerned with vocabulary: the searcher attempts to translate an explicit statement of need into a search term (or terms) that can be interpreted by the retrieval system. A few studies have empirically examined the match between the end-user searcher's formalized need and the compromised need (i.e., search terms). Markey (1984) compared the searcher's expressed topic (the formalized need, expressed in just a few words) and the search terms (the compromised need), and then went on to compare the search terms with the library catalog terms available for subject searching. She found that the search term matched or was a partial form of the expressed topic in 71% of the searches, and that over 75% of these searches matched a catalog term. Allen (1991) examined the relationship between logical reasoning ability and selection of search terms. He asked college students to read a magazine article (which could be seen as a very rich statement of the formalized need) and then to perform a search for articles on the same topic (expressing the compromised need).

Date

22. 3.2002 8:54:11

0.03149293 = product of:
  0.06298586 = sum of:
    0.06298586 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 287, 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=287)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Citizenship Information project investigates an area of growing significance and concern to public libraries in information service provision. Citizenship information and the role of information in helping the public to participate in the democratic process, in particular via electronic democracy, are at present highly significant issues, both for the information profession and for those involved in political life. Although there has been much comment on these and related concepts, there has been no attempt to gather evidence (positive or negative) as to the general public's interest in and need for citizenship information. Indeed, part of the project involved the attempt to achieve a better definition of citizenship information both in terms of the subject categories which it subsumes and of the respondents' perceptions of the kinds of information that might be connoted by the term. The researchers did not want to impose a definition on respondents but rather to develop and formalise one that would emerge from the data collected. This project seeks to investigate the extent to which members of the public in the UK have expressed or unexpressed needs for citizenship information, and to explore their preferred routes to the acquisition of such information. The project constitutes a piece of basic research, which would have implications for a range of information service providers. This paper reviews the theoretical and methodological approaches.

Date

22. 3.2002 8:53:04

0.03149293 = product of:
  0.06298586 = sum of:
    0.06298586 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=291)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 291, 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=291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study of information needs has been a subject of attention for library and information science professionals for more than four decades, and has led to the publication of a great amount of literature. Among the reasons that lead to this interest, we can mention, on the one hand, the utility that the results of this type of research have in improving mechanisms of providing information in the professional environment and, on the other hand, no less important, the recognition of problems in methodology which are revealed when studies which have already been reported are analysed (Gorman, 1995; Forsyte, et al., 1992). One of the reasons for this kind of research is, without doubt, the need to harmonise the potential that the new technologies offer for accessing and managing large quantities of information with the information needs of the users. Its objective is to provide appropriate information systems for each environment, in this case, the medical field (Timpka, et al., 1989; Forsyte, et al., 1992; Gorman, 1995; Gorman & Helfand 1995; Abad-Garcia, 1997).

Date

22. 3.2002 9:43:33

0.027569868 = product of:
  0.055139735 = sum of:
    0.055139735 = product of:
      0.11027947 = sum of:
        0.11027947 = weight(_text_:subject in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11027947 = score(doc=295,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.6775613 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on an investigation carried out at the Texas A&M University's Sterling Evans Library, USA, to identify skills and areas of knowledge with which a reference staff member should be familiar in such areas as reference desk procedures, electronic resources, and the 3 major subject groups of humanities, sciences and social sciences. Presents an overview and discusses the concept of subject baseline competencies, approaches to organizations of subject related baseline competencies, and the documents resulting from discussions with senior subject specialists in those 3 groups. Develops subject lists for baseline competencies as training tools for new librarians and staff

0.025194343 = product of:
  0.050388686 = sum of:
    0.050388686 = sum of:
      0.025726518 = weight(_text_:subject in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025726518 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 2963, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2963)
      0.024662167 = weight(_text_:22 in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024662167 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2963, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2963)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Uncovering faculty members' conceptions of Information Literacy (IL), as well as exploring their perceptions with regard to the importance given to a previously defined set of core IL competences grouped into four categories: searching, evaluation, processing and communication and dissemination. Ascertaining the possible differences among the five knowledge branches (arts and humanities, sciences, social and legal sciences, health sciences, and technical disciplines); and understanding the importance granted to a set of learning improvement initiatives by the faculty. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The survey was completed by a set of faculty members from the University of Granada (Spain). Data were collected using the IL-HUMASS survey. The research is based on subjective data, first approached from a descriptive point of view. Later, data correlation, analysis and non-parametric tests were used with the goal of finding significant differences of faculty perceptions among the relevant academic areas. Findings - Results suggest that more than half of the surveyed faculty have what the authors define as an Academic Concept of IL. The IL categories of communica\tion and dissemination and searching were graded in significance by the staff as being "very important," while those of evaluation and processing were assigned a slightly lesser rating of "important." Results suggest that IL awareness falls into two broad groups differentiated by subject discipline: those from health sciences, social and legal sciences and arts and humanities representing the first group, and sciences and technical disciplines the other. Research limitations/implications - This approach address the subjective status of faculty concepts in a single university, but also in all knowledge branches. Future research is needed. Originality/value - This is one of the few papers regarding faculty perceptions of IL.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 5755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=5755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5755, 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=5755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen. 57(1940), S.16-22

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 5761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=5761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5761, 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=5761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bücherei und Bildung. 22(1970), S.63-71

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5772, 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=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bibliothekar. 19(1965), S.15-22

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5341, 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=5341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Reference librarian; no.22

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 5649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=5649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5649, 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=5649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 4.2002 17:30:22

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 2504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=2504,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2504, 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=2504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2015 18:22:38

0.022510704 = product of:
  0.045021407 = sum of:
    0.045021407 = product of:
      0.090042815 = sum of:
        0.090042815 = weight(_text_:subject in 784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090042815 = score(doc=784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021579396 = product of:
  0.043158792 = sum of:
    0.043158792 = product of:
      0.086317584 = sum of:
        0.086317584 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086317584 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11