Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

0.051880024 = product of:
  0.07782003 = sum of:
    0.06396067 = weight(_text_:development in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06396067 = score(doc=6920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.39946604 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.0138593605 = product of:
      0.04157808 = sum of:
        0.04157808 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04157808 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

0.03939093 = product of:
  0.05908639 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.0138593605 = product of:
      0.04157808 = sum of:
        0.04157808 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04157808 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

0.03711707 = product of:
  0.055675603 = sum of:
    0.045686197 = weight(_text_:development in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045686197 = score(doc=5767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.2853329 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.009989405 = product of:
      0.029968213 = sum of:
        0.029968213 = weight(_text_:29 in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029968213 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group

Date

29. 9.2001 14:01:01

0.03383554 = product of:
  0.05075331 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
    0.011987286 = product of:
      0.035961855 = sum of:
        0.035961855 = weight(_text_:29 in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035961855 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Domain visualization is one of the new research fronts resulted from the proliferation of information visualization, aiming to reveal the essence of a knowledge domain. Information visualization plays an integral role in modeling and representing intellectual structures associated with scientific disciplines. In this article, the domain of computer graphics is visualized based on author cocitation patterns derived from an 18-year span of the prestigious IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1982-1999). This domain visualization utilizes a series of visualization and animation techniques, including author cocitation maps, citation time lines, animation of a highdimensional specialty space, and institutional profiles. This approach not only augments traditional domain analysis and the understanding of scientific disciplines, but also produces a persistent and shared knowledge space for researchers to keep track the development of knowledge more effectively. The results of the domain visualization are discussed and triangulated in a broader context of the computer graphics field

Date

29. 9.2001 14:00:53

0.024365973 = product of:
  0.073097914 = sum of:
    0.073097914 = weight(_text_:development in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073097914 = score(doc=954,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.45653263 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) is a significant document database on mainland China, which has been built up by the Documentation and Information Centre of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Briefly introduces the background to CSCD, and discusses in detail its development and application, source journals and citation data, data processing methods, subject scope, compilation regulations, stylistic rules and layout, and usage directions for both the printed and CD-ROM editions of CSCD which have been published from the data

0.021536682 = product of:
  0.06461004 = sum of:
    0.06461004 = weight(_text_:development in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06461004 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.40352166 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Part 1 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Traces the history and development of bibliometrics, including its definition, scope, role in scholarly communication and applications. Treats citation analysis similarly with particular reference to bibliographic coupling and cocitation coupling

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 6850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=6850,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 6850, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6850)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Identifying the users and impact of research is important for research performers, managers, evaluators, and sponsors. It is important to know whether the audience reached is the audience desired. It is useful to understand the technical characteristics of the other research/development/applications impacted by the originating research, and to understand other characteristics (names, organizations, countries) of the users impacted by the research. Because of the many indirect pathways through which fundamental research can impact applications, identifying the user audience and the research impacts can be very complex and time consuming. The purpose of this article is to describe a novel approach for identifying the pathways through which research can impact other research, technology development, and applications, and to identify the technical and infrastructure characteristics of the user population. A novel literature-based approach was developed to identify the user community and its characteristics. The research performed is characterized by one or more articles accessed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) database, beccause the SCI's citation-based structure enables the capability to perform citation studies easily. The user community is characterized by the articles in the SCI that cite the original research articles, and that cite the succeeding generations of these articles as well. Text mining is performed on the citing articles to identify the technical areas impacted by the research, the relationships among these technical areas, and relationships among the technical areas and the infrastructure (authors, journals, organizations). A key component of text mining, concept clustering, was used to provide both a taxonomy of the citing articles' technical themes and further technical insights based on theme relationships arising from the grouping process. Bibliometrics is performed on the citing articles to profile the user characteristics. Citation Mining, this integration of citation bibliometrics and text mining, is applied to the 307 first generation citing articles of a fundamental physics article on the dynamics of vibrating sand-piles. Most of the 307 citing articles were basic research whose main themes were aligned with those of the cited article. However, about 20% of the citing articles were research or development in other disciplines, or development within the same discipline. The text mining alone identified the intradiscipline applications and extradiscipline impacts and applications; this was confirmed by detailed reading of the 307 abstracts. The combination of citation bibliometrics and text mining provides a synergy unavailable with each approach taken independently. Furthermore, text mining is a REQUIREMENT for a feasible comprehensive research impact determination. The integrated multigeneration citation analysis required for broad research impact determination of highly cited articles will produce thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of citing article Abstracts.

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 6896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=6896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 6896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6896)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation indexes are based on the principle of authors citing previous articles of relevance. The paper demonstrates the long history of citing for precedent and notes how ISI's citation indexes differ from 'Shephards Citations'. The paper analyses some of the criticisms of citations counting, and some of the uses for which citation analysis has been employed. The paper also examines the idea of the development of an Acknowledgement Index, and concludes such an index is unlikely to be commercially viable. The paper describes a citation study of Eugene Garfield, and concludes that he may be the most heavily cited information scientist, that he is a heavy self-citer, and that the reasons why other authors cite Garfield are different from the reasons why he cites himself. The paper concludes that citation studies remain a valid methgod of analysis of individuals', institutions', or journals' impact, but need to be used with caution and in conjunction with other measures

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article we demonstrate the use of an integrative approach to visualizing and tracking the development of scientific paradigms. This approach is designed to reveal the long-term process of competing scientific paradigms. We assume that a cluster of highly cited and cocited scientific publications in a cocitation network represents the core of a predominant scientific paradigm. The growth of a paradigm is depicted and animated through the rise of citation rates and the movement of its core cluster towards the center of the cocitation network. We study two cases of competing scientific paradigms in the real world: (1) the causes of mass extinctions, and (2) the connections between mad cow disease and a new variant of a brain disease in humans-vCJD. Various theoretical and practical issues concerning this approach are discussed.

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=4419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world-wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five-year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=3848,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 3848, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3848)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Web of Science, an online database of bibliographic information produced by Thomson Reuters- draws its real value from the scholarly citation index at its core. By indexing the cited references from each paper as a separate part of the bibliographic data, a citation index creates a pathway by which a paper can be linked backward in time to the body of work that preceded it, as well as linked forward in time to its scholarly descendants. This entry provides a brief history of the development of the citation index, its core functionalities, and the way these unique data are provided to users through the Web of Science.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The act of referencing another author's work in a scholarly or research paper is usually assumed to signal a direct semantic relationship between the citing and cited work. The present article reports a study that examines this assumption directly. The purpose of the research is to investigate the semantic relationship between citing and cited documents for a sample of document pairs in three journals in library and information science: 'Library journal', 'College and research libraries' and 'Journal of the American Society for Information Science'. A macroanalysis, absed on a comparison of the Library of Congress class numbers assigned citing and cited documents, and a microanalysis, based on a comparison of descriptors assigned citing and cited documents by three indexing and abstracting journals, ERIC, LISA and LiLi, were conducted. Both analyses suggest that the subject similarity among pairs of cited and citing documents is typically very small, supporting a subjective, psychological view of relevance and a trial-and-error, heuristic understanding of the information search and research processes. The results of the study have implications for collection development, for an understanding of psychological relevance, and for the results of doing information retrieval using cited references. Several intriguing methodological questions are raised for future research, including the role of indexing depth, specifity, and quality on the measurement of document similarity

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the scientific backbone from the citation network of a research domain. Existing approaches ignored the semantic relationships between the citing and cited publications, resulting in several adverse issues, in terms of coherence of main paths and coverage of significant studies. This paper advocated the semantic main path network analysis approach to alleviate these issues based on citation function analysis. A wide variety of SciBERT-based deep learning models were designed for identifying citation functions. Semantic citation networks were built by either including important citations, for example, extension, motivation, usage and similarity, or excluding incidental citations like background and future work. Semantic main path network was built by merging the top-K main paths extracted from various time slices of semantic citation network. In addition, a three-way framework was proposed for the quantitative evaluation of main path analysis results. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis on three research areas of computational linguistics demonstrated that, compared to semantics-agnostic counterparts, different types of semantic main path networks provide complementary views of scientific knowledge flows. Combining them together, we obtained a more precise and comprehensive picture of domain evolution and uncover more coherent development pathways between scientific ideas.

0.010559513 = product of:
  0.03167854 = sum of:
    0.03167854 = product of:
      0.09503561 = sum of:
        0.09503561 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09503561 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.010559513 = product of:
  0.03167854 = sum of:
    0.03167854 = product of:
      0.09503561 = sum of:
        0.09503561 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09503561 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.00933338 = product of:
  0.028000137 = sum of:
    0.028000137 = product of:
      0.08400041 = sum of:
        0.08400041 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08400041 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.009323443 = product of:
  0.027970329 = sum of:
    0.027970329 = product of:
      0.08391099 = sum of:
        0.08391099 = weight(_text_:29 in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08391099 = score(doc=445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Deutscher Dokumentartag 1982, Lübeck-Travemünde, 29.-30.9.1982: Fachinformation im Zeitalter der Informationsindustrie. Bearb.: H. Strohl-Goebel

0.009323443 = product of:
  0.027970329 = sum of:
    0.027970329 = product of:
      0.08391099 = sum of:
        0.08391099 = weight(_text_:29 in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08391099 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30.10.2000 17:47:29