Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.029055499 = product of:
  0.10169424 = sum of:
    0.054142136 = weight(_text_:great in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054142136 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
    0.04755211 = product of:
      0.09510422 = sum of:
        0.09510422 = weight(_text_:britain in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09510422 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28835937 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.32981142 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.

0.015469182 = product of:
  0.10828427 = sum of:
    0.10828427 = weight(_text_:great in 3754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10828427 = score(doc=3754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 3754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3754)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The brothers Foskett, Anthony and Douglas, have both made major contributions to the theory and practice of subject analysis and description. Here, Douglas Foskett explains facet analysis, a vital technique in the development of both classification schemes and thesauri. Foskett himself created faceted classification schemes for specific disciplines, drawing from the philosophy of the great Indian classificationist, S.R. Ranganathan.

0.013535535 = product of:
  0.09474874 = sum of:
    0.09474874 = weight(_text_:great in 6991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09474874 = score(doc=6991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 6991, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6991)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Stresses that S.R. Ranganathan was truly a great scholar, who made rich contribution to different aspects of library and information science, but is better known for his work in the field of library classification. discusses his distinctive contributions to classification such as normative principles, 3 plane model of work, freely faceted classification (involving facet analysis and the synthetic principle), postulational approach, fundamental categories and certain notational devices like the sector device, group notation device, emptying digit device and seminal mnemonic device. Regards these as seminal ideas forming the basis of his theory of library classification. Considers 7th ed. of the Colon Classification as the best example of the application of theses ideas

0.010740583 = product of:
  0.07518408 = sum of:
    0.07518408 = weight(_text_:instruction in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07518408 = score(doc=5313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2293201 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Astronomy classification is often overlooked in classification discourse. Its rarity and obscurity, especially within UK librarianship, suggests it is an underdeveloped strand of classification research and is possibly undervalued in modern librarianship. The purpose of this research is to investigate the suitability and practicalities of the discipline of astronomy adopting a subject-specific faceted classification scheme and to provide a provi-sional outline of a special faceted astronomy classification scheme. The research demonstrates that the application of universal schemes for astronomy classification had left the interdisciplinary subject ill catered for and outdated, making accurate classification difficult for specialist astronomy collections. A faceted approach to classification development is supported by two qualitative literature-based research methods: historical research into astronomy classification and an analytico-synthetic classification case study. The subsequent classification development is influenced through a pragmatic and scholarly-scientific approach and constructed by means of instruction from faceted classification guides by Vickery (1960) and Batley (2005), and faceted classification principles from Ranaganathan (1937). This research fills a gap within classification discourse on specialist interdisciplinary subjects, specifically within astronomy and demonstrates the best means for their classification. It provides a means of assessing further the value of faceted classification within astronomy librarianship.

0.009668238 = product of:
  0.06767767 = sum of:
    0.06767767 = weight(_text_:great in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06767767 = score(doc=1893,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to respond to the 2005 paper by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen by suggesting that an exhaustive and universal classification of the phenomena that scholars study, and the methods and theories they apply, is feasible. It seeks to argue that such a classification is critical for interdisciplinary scholarship. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen as its starting point. Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen had identified several difficulties that would be encountered in developing such a classification; the paper suggests how each of these can be overcome. It also urges a deductive approach as complementary to the inductive approach recommended by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen. Findings - The paper finds that an exhaustive and universal classification of scholarly documents in terms of (at least) the phenomena that scholars study, and the theories and methods they apply, appears to be both possible and desirable. Practical implications - The paper suggests how such a project can be begun. In particular it stresses the importance of classifying documents in terms of causal links between phenomena. Originality/value - The paper links the information science, interdisciplinary, and study of science literatures, and suggests that the types of classification outlined above would be of great value to scientists/scholars, and that they are possible.

0.009668238 = product of:
  0.06767767 = sum of:
    0.06767767 = weight(_text_:great in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06767767 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

One of the main topics of scientific research, classification is the operation consisting of distributing objects in classes or groups which are, in general, less numerous than them. From Antiquity to the Classical Age, it has a long history where philosophers (Aristotle), and natural scientists (Linnaeus), took a great part. But from the nineteenth century (with the growth of chemistry and information science) and the twentieth century (with the arrival of mathematical models and computer science), mathematics (especially theory of orders and theory of graphs or hypergraphs) allows us to compute all the possible partitions, chains of partitions, covers, hypergraphs or systems of classes we can construct on a domain. In spite of these advances, most of classifications are still based on the evaluation of ressemblances between objects that constitute the empirical data. However, all these classifications remain, for technical and epistemological reasons we detail below, very unstable ones. We lack a real algebra of classifications, which could explain their properties and the relations existing between them. Though the aim of a general theory of classifications is surely a wishful thought, some recent conjecture gives the hope that the existence of a metaclassification (or classification of all classification schemes) is possible

0.007734591 = product of:
  0.054142136 = sum of:
    0.054142136 = weight(_text_:great in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054142136 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Prior to the OPAC many institutions devised classifications to suit their special needs. Others expanded or altered general schemes to accommodate specific approaches. A driving force in the creation of these classifications was the Classification Research Group, celebrating its golden jubilee in 2002, whose work created a framework and body of principles that remain valid for the retrieval needs of today. The paper highlights some of these special schemes and highlights the fundamental principles which remain valid. 1. Introduction The distinction between a general and a special classification scheme is made frequently in the textbooks, but is one that it is sometimes difficult to draw. The Library of Congress classification could be described as the special classification par excellence. Normally, however, a special classification is taken to be one that is restricted to a specific subject, and quite often used in one specific context only, either a library or a bibliographic listing or for a specific purpose such as a search engine and it is in this sense that I propose to examine some of these schemes. Today, there is a widespread preference for searching an words as a supplement to the use of a standard system, usually the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). This is enhanced by the ability to search documents full-text in a computerized environment, a situation that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Today's situation is a great improvement in many ways, but it does depend upon the words used by the author and the searcher corresponding, and often presupposes the use of English. In libraries, the use of co-operative services and precatalogued records already provided with classification data has also spelt the demise of the special scheme. In many instances, the survival of a special classification depends upon its creaior and, with the passage of time, this becomes inevitably more precarious.

0.007734591 = product of:
  0.054142136 = sum of:
    0.054142136 = weight(_text_:great in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054142136 = score(doc=733,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 733, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=733)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Is this book sociology, anthropology, or taxonomy? Sorting Things Out, by communications theorists Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, covers a lot of conceptual ground in its effort to sort out exactly how and why we classify and categorize the things and concepts we encounter day to day. But the analysis doesn't stop there; the authors go on to explore what happens to our thinking as a result of our classifications. With great insight and precise academic language, they pick apart our information systems and language structures that lie deeper than the everyday categories we use. The authors focus first on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), a widely used scheme used by health professionals worldwide, but also look at other health information systems, racial classifications used by South Africa during apartheid, and more. Though it comes off as a bit too academic at times (by the end of the 20th century, most writers should be able to get the spelling of McDonald's restaurant right), the book has a clever charm that thoughtful readers will surely appreciate. A sly sense of humor sneaks into the writing, giving rise to the chapter title "The Kindness of Strangers," for example. After arguing that categorization is both strongly influenced by and a powerful reinforcer of ideology, it follows that revolutions (political or scientific) must change the way things are sorted in order to throw over the old system. Who knew that such simple, basic elements of thought could have such far-reaching consequences? Whether you ultimately place it with social science, linguistics, or (as the authors fear) fantasy, make sure you put Sorting Things Out in your reading pile.

0.005469182 = product of:
  0.038284272 = sum of:
    0.038284272 = weight(_text_:great in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038284272 = score(doc=2824,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.17596185 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

0.004487264 = product of:
  0.031410847 = sum of:
    0.031410847 = product of:
      0.06282169 = sum of:
        0.06282169 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06282169 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.004487264 = product of:
  0.031410847 = sum of:
    0.031410847 = product of:
      0.06282169 = sum of:
        0.06282169 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06282169 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.004487264 = product of:
  0.031410847 = sum of:
    0.031410847 = product of:
      0.06282169 = sum of:
        0.06282169 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06282169 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.0029915096 = product of:
  0.020940566 = sum of:
    0.020940566 = product of:
      0.041881133 = sum of:
        0.041881133 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041881133 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.0029915096 = product of:
  0.020940566 = sum of:
    0.020940566 = product of:
      0.041881133 = sum of:
        0.041881133 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041881133 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23

0.0029915096 = product of:
  0.020940566 = sum of:
    0.020940566 = product of:
      0.041881133 = sum of:
        0.041881133 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041881133 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.0029915096 = product of:
  0.020940566 = sum of:
    0.020940566 = product of:
      0.041881133 = sum of:
        0.041881133 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041881133 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Pages

S.1-22

0.0026175708 = product of:
  0.018322995 = sum of:
    0.018322995 = product of:
      0.03664599 = sum of:
        0.03664599 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03664599 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95

0.0026175708 = product of:
  0.018322995 = sum of:
    0.018322995 = product of:
      0.03664599 = sum of:
        0.03664599 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03664599 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0026175708 = product of:
  0.018322995 = sum of:
    0.018322995 = product of:
      0.03664599 = sum of:
        0.03664599 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03664599 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Pages

S.22-36

0.002243632 = product of:
  0.015705423 = sum of:
    0.015705423 = product of:
      0.031410847 = sum of:
        0.031410847 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031410847 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47