Search (158 results, page 1 of 8)

0.055441353 = product of:
  0.11088271 = sum of:
    0.11088271 = sum of:
      0.061481703 = weight(_text_:libraries in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061481703 = score(doc=108,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.049401004 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049401004 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation analysis has long been used by librarians as an important tool of collection development and the advent of Internet technology and especially the WWW adds a new facet to the role played by citation analysis. One of the reasons why librarians create WWW homepages is to provide users with further sources of interest or reference and to do this libraries include links from their own homepages to other information sources. Reports current research on the analysis of WWW pages as an introduction to an examination of the homepages of 25 art libraries to determine what sites are most often included. The types of linked sites are analyzed based on 3 criteria: location, focus and evidence that the link was evaluated before the connection was establisheds

Date

10. 1.1999 16:22:37

0.053071506 = product of:
  0.10614301 = sum of:
    0.10614301 = sum of:
      0.049684722 = weight(_text_:libraries in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049684722 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
      0.056458294 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056458294 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 80, 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=80)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Report presented at the 16th National Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres Seminar Special Interest Group Meeting on Informatrics in Bombay, 19-22 Dec 94

0.053071506 = product of:
  0.10614301 = sum of:
    0.10614301 = sum of:
      0.049684722 = weight(_text_:libraries in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049684722 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
      0.056458294 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056458294 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 673, 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=673)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of 111 theses accepted by the Department of Library and Information Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, between 1977 and 1992. The analysis was based on year, type and degree awarded, subject, type of library and geographical area. Concludes that the highest number of submissions was 1991, when 108 MLS theses (97,29%) and 3 PhD theses (2,71%) were accepted. Libraries and readers was the most concetrated subject while the academic library was the most discussed type of library

Source

Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25

0.04752116 = product of:
  0.09504232 = sum of:
    0.09504232 = sum of:
      0.052698605 = weight(_text_:libraries in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052698605 = score(doc=853,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
      0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042343717 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the authorship characteristics of articles published in 4 major information science periodicals: JASIS, Information technology and libraries, Journal of information science, and Program. The aim was to determine the details of their authors, such as: sex, occupation, affiliation, geographic distribution, and institutional affiliation. A total of 163 articles published in 1993 and written by 294 authors were analyzed. Results indicate that: men (206 or 70%) publish 3.0 times more articles than women (69 or 23,5%). Schools of library and information science contributed the most authors. The majority of authors came from the USA (148 or 50,3%), with the Midwest region claiming the largest share (110 or 25,0%). Academic libraries (110 or 37,4%) account for the major share of library publication. 12 schools of library and information science, in the USA, contributed 32 authors (50,0%) and assistant professors (25 or 39,1%) publish the most in these library schools. Male school of library and information science authors publish 1,6 times more than their female counterparts

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23

0.03980363 = product of:
  0.07960726 = sum of:
    0.07960726 = sum of:
      0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037263542 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
      0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042343717 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.03980363 = product of:
  0.07960726 = sum of:
    0.07960726 = sum of:
      0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037263542 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
      0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042343717 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.03980363 = product of:
  0.07960726 = sum of:
    0.07960726 = sum of:
      0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037263542 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042343717 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = 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)

Abstract

Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.03960097 = product of:
  0.07920194 = sum of:
    0.07920194 = sum of:
      0.043915503 = weight(_text_:libraries in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043915503 = score(doc=875,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
      0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035286434 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die Bereitstellung und Nutzung digitaler Bibliotheken entwickelt sich allmählich zum Standard der Literatur und Informationsversorgung in Wissenschaft und Forschung. Ganzen Disziplinen genügt oftmals die verfügbare digitale Information, Printmedien werden besonders im STM-Segment zu einem Nischenprodukt. Digitale Texte können beliebig eingebaut, kopiert und nachgenutzt werden, die Verlinkung zwischen Metadaten und Volltexten bringt weitere Nutzungsvorteile. Dabei sind die Angebote von Digital Libraries Bestandteil eines ganzheitlichen digitalen Ansatzes, wonach die elektronische Informations- und Literaturversorgung integraler Bestandteil von E-Science (Enhanced Science) oder Cyberinfrastructure darstellt. Hierbei verschmelzen dann Produktion, Diskussion, Distribution und Rezeption der wissenschaftlichen Inhalte auf einer einzigen digitalen Plattform. Damit sind dann nicht nur die Literatur- und Informationsversorgung (Digital Libraries), sondern auch die Wissenschaft selbst digital geworden. Diese dramatische Veränderung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation hat direkte Auswirkungen auf die Messung der Wissenschaftskommunikation, also auf die Evaluation von wissenschaftlichem Output. Bisherige Systeme der Wissenschaftsvermessung basieren hauptsächlich auf bibliometrischen Analysen, d.h. der Quantifizierung des Outputs und dessen Rezeption (Zitierhäufigkeit). Basis dafür sind insbesondere im STM-Bereich die international anerkannten Datenbanken des ISI (Thomson Scientific) insbesondere der Science Citation Index, SCI) oder vielleicht zukünftig das Konkurrenzprodukt SCOPUS des Wissenschaftskonzerns Reed Elsevier. Die Digitalisierung der Wissenschaft in ihrem kompletten Lebenszyklus, die zunehmende Nutzung und Akzeptanz von Dokumentenrepositorien, Institutsservern und anderen elektronischen Publikationsformen im Rahmen von E-Science erfordern und ermöglichen zugleich den Nachweis von Output und Rezeption durch neue bibliometrische Formen, etwa der Webometrie (Webmetrics). Im vorliegenden Paper haben wir hierzu Analysen durchgeführt und stellen eine Abschätzung vor, wie sich der Anteil von webometrisch erfassbarer und zugänglicher wissenschaftlicher Literatur im Vergleich zu Literatur, die mit den Standardsystemen nachgewiesen werden kann im Laufe der letzten Jahre verändert hat. Dabei haben wir unterschiedliche Disziplinen und Länder berücksichtigt. Zudem wird ein Vergleich der webometrischen Nachweisqualität so unterschiedlicher Systeme wie SCI, SCOPUS und Google Scholar vorgestellt.

Date

23.12.2007 19:22:21

0.028229147 = product of:
  0.056458294 = sum of:
    0.056458294 = product of:
      0.11291659 = sum of:
        0.11291659 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11291659 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.028229147 = product of:
  0.056458294 = sum of:
    0.056458294 = product of:
      0.11291659 = sum of:
        0.11291659 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11291659 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.028229147 = product of:
  0.056458294 = sum of:
    0.056458294 = product of:
      0.11291659 = sum of:
        0.11291659 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11291659 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.026535753 = product of:
  0.053071506 = sum of:
    0.053071506 = sum of:
      0.024842361 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024842361 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
      0.028229147 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028229147 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, 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=4633)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.024951275 = product of:
  0.04990255 = sum of:
    0.04990255 = product of:
      0.0998051 = sum of:
        0.0998051 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0998051 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.024951275 = product of:
  0.04990255 = sum of:
    0.04990255 = product of:
      0.0998051 = sum of:
        0.0998051 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0998051 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.024700502 = product of:
  0.049401004 = sum of:
    0.049401004 = product of:
      0.09880201 = sum of:
        0.09880201 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09880201 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.024700502 = product of:
  0.049401004 = sum of:
    0.049401004 = product of:
      0.09880201 = sum of:
        0.09880201 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09880201 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, 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=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.024700502 = product of:
  0.049401004 = sum of:
    0.049401004 = product of:
      0.09880201 = sum of:
        0.09880201 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09880201 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

0.021737067 = product of:
  0.043474134 = sum of:
    0.043474134 = product of:
      0.08694827 = sum of:
        0.08694827 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08694827 = score(doc=2151,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.50813097 = fieldWeight in 2151, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Libraries and culture. 34(1999) no.4, S.380-388

0.021171859 = product of:
  0.042343717 = sum of:
    0.042343717 = product of:
      0.084687434 = sum of:
        0.084687434 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084687434 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, 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=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.021171859 = product of:
  0.042343717 = sum of:
    0.042343717 = product of:
      0.084687434 = sum of:
        0.084687434 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084687434 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22