Search (156 results, page 1 of 8)

0.14342998 = product of:
  0.35857493 = sum of:
    0.06839587 = product of:
      0.20518759 = sum of:
        0.20518759 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20518759 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36509076 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.29017907 = weight(_text_:2f in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29017907 = score(doc=2514,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36509076 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.7948135 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.

0.0362043 = product of:
  0.1810215 = sum of:
    0.1810215 = weight(_text_:great in 3853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1810215 = score(doc=3853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.74654293 = fieldWeight in 3853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3853)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.023895623 = product of:
  0.119478114 = sum of:
    0.119478114 = weight(_text_:education in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119478114 = score(doc=3524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.5889057 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Paper presented at the 5th National Convention for Automation of Libraries in Education and Research (CALIBER-98), at Bhubaneswar, 4-5 March 1998

Source

Information management in academic and research libraries: Proceedings of the 5th National convention for Automation of Libraries in Education and Research (CALIBER-98), Bhubaneswar, India, 4-5 March 1998. Ed. by M. Mahapatra et al

0.021120947 = product of:
  0.10560473 = sum of:
    0.10560473 = weight(_text_:education in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10560473 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.520524 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01810215 = product of:
  0.09051075 = sum of:
    0.09051075 = weight(_text_:great in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09051075 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Search engine retrieval effectiveness studies are usually small scale, using only limited query samples. Furthermore, queries are selected by the researchers. We address these issues by taking a random representative sample of 1,000 informational and 1,000 navigational queries from a major German search engine and comparing Google's and Bing's results based on this sample. Jurors were found through crowdsourcing, and data were collected using specialized software, the Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT). We found that although Google outperforms Bing in both query types, the difference in the performance for informational queries was rather low. However, for navigational queries, Google found the correct answer in 95.3% of cases, whereas Bing only found the correct answer 76.6% of the time. We conclude that search engine performance on navigational queries is of great importance, because users in this case can clearly identify queries that have returned correct results. So, performance on this query type may contribute to explaining user satisfaction with search engines.

0.014934765 = product of:
  0.074673824 = sum of:
    0.074673824 = weight(_text_:education in 3325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074673824 = score(doc=3325,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.36806607 = fieldWeight in 3325, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3325)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It is important for education in computer science and information systems to keep up to date with the latest development in technology. With the rapid development of the Internet and the Web, many schools have included Internet-related technologies, such as Web search engines and e-commerce, as part of their curricula. Previous research has shown that it is effective to use search engine development tools to facilitate students' learning. However, the effectiveness of these tools in the classroom has not been evaluated. In this article, we review the design of three search engine development tools, SpidersRUs, Greenstone, and Alkaline, followed by an evaluation study that compared the three tools in the classroom. In the study, 33 students were divided into 13 groups and each group used the three tools to develop three independent search engines in a class project. Our evaluation results showed that SpidersRUs performed better than the two other tools in overall satisfaction and the level of knowledge gained in their learning experience when using the tools for a class project on Internet applications development.

0.014784663 = product of:
  0.07392331 = sum of:
    0.07392331 = weight(_text_:education in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07392331 = score(doc=360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.3643668 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

External factors are forcing libraries to seriously evaluate and redefine their purpose within higher education. Libraries have identified themselves as gateways to information. Google, and other Internet search tools, have changed the need and importance of the gatekeeper role in libraries. The authors argue that libraries have a role that is broader than that of gatekeeper. It is necessary to move beyond our existing mental models and truly redefine our unique role based on the needs within the external environment. To develop this broader role, libraries must develop collaborative relationships and leverage existing tools and services.

0.012068099 = product of:
  0.060340498 = sum of:
    0.060340498 = weight(_text_:great in 4741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060340498 = score(doc=4741,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 4741, 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=4741)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The age of the information explosion, effective access to the most relevant resources available on the internet is one of the chief concerns for users. Familiarity with types of search tools is required. One of the search tools designed to solve this problem for internet users is the metasearch engine (MSE). The purpose of this paper is to assess how far this search tool is truly effective in solving users' problems of Internet access. Design/methodology/approach - This research examines MSEs in terms of recall ratio in retrieving documents indexed and ranked highly (1-10) within their common underlying search engines (SEs). Five general MSEs in English, which are free of charge, were utilized in this research. In order to calculate the recall ratio of MSEs, five well known MSEs which have four common underlying SEs were chosen. Then, selected keywords were searched in each SE and MSE. Two lists were prepared: one list was based on the first ten results recalled by the SE, and the other was based on the first 40 results recalled by the MSE. These lists were compared with each other. An equation was utilized in this process. Findings - The findings indicate that MSEs are more likely to find the same documents which are common in their underlying search engines. Research limitations/implications - This paper offers a rigorous quantitative method for comparative evaluation of MSEs. Practical implications - Furthermore, MSEs which have a successful recall ratio are identified, which is a finding of great practical relevance to library and information practitioners helping users exploit the Internet to best effect. Originality/value - This paper provides clear descriptive evidence for the underlying retrieval patterns of important search tools which are commonly used by internet users today.

0.010559588 = product of:
  0.052797936 = sum of:
    0.052797936 = weight(_text_:great in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052797936 = score(doc=3891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.21774168 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Let us start with your positive experiences with Google. I have known Google longer than most. At Opera, we were the first to add their search into the browser interface, enabling it directly from the search box and the address field. At that time, Google was an up-and-coming geeky company. I remember vividly meeting with Google's co-founder Larry Page, his relaxed dress code and his love for the Danger device, which he played with throughout our meeting. Later, I met with the other co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, and got positive vibes. My first impression of Google was that it was a likeable company. Our cooperation with Google was a good one. Integrating their search into Opera helped us deliver a better service to our users and generated revenue that paid the bills. We helped Google grow, along with others that followed in our footsteps and integrated Google search into their browsers. Then the picture for you and for opera darkened. Yes, then things changed. Google increased their proximity with the Mozilla foundation. They also introduced new services such as Google Docs. These services were great, gained quick popularity, but also exposed the darker side of Google. Not only were these services made to be incompatible with Opera, but also encouraged users to switch their browsers. I brought this up with Sergey Brin, in vain. For millions of Opera users to be able to access these services, we had to hide our browser's identity. The browser sniffing situation only worsened after Google started building their own browser, Chrome. ...

0.009901436 = product of:
  0.04950718 = sum of:
    0.04950718 = product of:
      0.09901436 = sum of:
        0.09901436 = weight(_text_:22 in 3227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09901436 = score(doc=3227,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3227, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 2.1996 22:38:41

Pages

22 S

0.009901436 = product of:
  0.04950718 = sum of:
    0.04950718 = product of:
      0.09901436 = sum of:
        0.09901436 = weight(_text_:22 in 4007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09901436 = score(doc=4007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4007, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 8.1999 20:22:06

0.009901436 = product of:
  0.04950718 = sum of:
    0.04950718 = product of:
      0.09901436 = sum of:
        0.09901436 = weight(_text_:22 in 4009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09901436 = score(doc=4009,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4009, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 8.1999 21:22:59

0.009335163 = product of:
  0.046675812 = sum of:
    0.046675812 = product of:
      0.093351625 = sum of:
        0.093351625 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093351625 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, 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=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27.11.2005 18:04:22

0.009051075 = product of:
  0.045255374 = sum of:
    0.045255374 = weight(_text_:great in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045255374 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.18663573 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"One of the things I enjoyed the most when I was a reference librarian was the wide range of questions my clients sent my way. What was the original title of the first Godzilla movie? (Gojira, released in 1954) Who said 'I'm as pure as the driven slush'? (Tallulah Bankhead) What percentage of adults have gone to a jazz performance in the last year? (11%) I have found that librarians, speech writers and journalists have one thing in common - we all need to find information on all kinds of topics, and we usually need the answers right now. The following are a few of my favorite sites for finding answers to those there-must-be-an-answer-out-there questions. - For the electronic equivalent to the "ready reference" shelf of resources that most librarians keep hidden behind their desks, check out RefDesk . It is particularly good for answering factual questions - Where do I get the new Windows XP Service Pack? Where is the 386 area code? How do I contact my member of Congress? - Another resource for lots of those quick-fact questions is InfoPlease, the publishers of the Information Please almanac .- Right now, it's full of Olympics data, but it also has links to facts and factoids that you would look up in an almanac, atlas, or encyclopedia. - If you want numbers, start with the Statistical Abstract of the US. This source, produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, gives you everything from the divorce rate by state to airline cost indexes going back to 1980. It is many librarians' secret weapon for pulling numbers together quickly. - My favorite question is "how does that work?" Haven't you ever wondered how they get that Olympic torch to continue to burn while it is being carried by runners from one city to the next? Or how solar sails manage to propel a spacecraft? For answers, check out the appropriately-named How Stuff Works. - For questions about movies, my first resource is the Internet Movie Database. It is easy to search, is such a popular site that mistakes are corrected quickly, and is a fun place to catch trailers of both upcoming movies and those dating back to the 30s. - When I need to figure out who said what, I still tend to rely on the print sources such as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations . No, the current edition is not available on the web, but - and this is the librarian in me - I really appreciate the fact that I not only get the attribution but I also see the source of the quote. There are far too many quotes being attributed to a celebrity, but with no indication of the publication in which the quote appeared. Take, for example, the much-cited quote of Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" Then see the page on the Institute for Intercultural Studies site, founded by Meade, and read its statement that it has never been able to verify this alleged quote from Meade. While there are lots of web-based sources of quotes (see QuotationsPage.com and Bartleby, for example), unless the site provides the original source for the quotation, I wouldn't rely on the citation. Of course, if you have a hunch as to the source of a quote, and it was published prior to 1923, head over to Project Gutenberg , which includes the full text of over 12,000 books that are in the public domain. When I needed to confirm a quotation of the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", this is where I started. - And if you are stumped as to where to go to find information, instead of Googling it, try the Librarians' Index to the Internet. While it is somewhat US-centric, it is a great directory of web resources."

0.009051075 = product of:
  0.045255374 = sum of:
    0.045255374 = weight(_text_:great in 3073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045255374 = score(doc=3073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.18663573 = fieldWeight in 3073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3073)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

The practical arguments for such a step are irrefutable: quantity, speed, precision, on-demand availability are no doubt important to the scholar: And new technologies need not be exclusionary. The invention of photography did not eliminate painting, it renewed it, and no doubt the screen and the reference books can feed oft Bach other and coexist amicably an the same reader's desk. All we need to do is remember the corollaries tethe arguments in favor of a virtual library:" that reading, in orderto allow reflection, requires slowness, depth and context; that leafing through a material book or roaming through material shelves is an intimate part of the craft; that the omnipresent electronic technology is still fragile and that, as it changes. we keep losing the possibility of retrieving that which was once stored in now outdated containers. We can still read the words an papyrus ashes saved from the charred ruins of Pompeii; we don't know for how lung it will be possible to read a text inscribed in a 2004 CD. This is not a complaint just a reminder. Jorge Luis Berges invented a Bouvard-and-Pécuchet-like charafter who tries to compile a universal encyclopedia so complete that nothing world be excluded from it. In the end, like his French forerunners, he falls. but not entirely. On the evening an which he gives up bis great project. he hires. a horse and buggy and takes a tour of the city. He sees brick walls, ordinary people. houses, a river, a marketplace and feels that somehow all these things are his own work. He realizes that his project was not impossible but merely redundant. The world encyclopedia, the universal library, already exists and is the world itself."

0.009051075 = product of:
  0.045255374 = sum of:
    0.045255374 = weight(_text_:great in 6) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045255374 = score(doc=6,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.18663573 = fieldWeight in 6, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Why doesn't your home page appear on the first page of search results, even when you query your own name? How do other Web pages always appear at the top? What creates these powerful rankings? And how? The first book ever about the science of Web page rankings, "Google's PageRank and Beyond" supplies the answers to these and other questions and more. The book serves two very different audiences: the curious science reader and the technical computational reader. The chapters build in mathematical sophistication, so that the first five are accessible to the general academic reader. While other chapters are much more mathematical in nature, each one contains something for both audiences. For example, the authors include entertaining asides such as how search engines make money and how the Great Firewall of China influences research. The book includes an extensive background chapter designed to help readers learn more about the mathematics of search engines, and it contains several MATLAB codes and links to sample Web data sets. The philosophy throughout is to encourage readers to experiment with the ideas and algorithms in the text. Any business seriously interested in improving its rankings in the major search engines can benefit from the clear examples, sample code, and list of resources provided. It includes: many illustrative examples and entertaining asides; MATLAB code; accessible and informal style; and complete and self-contained section for mathematics review.

0.008251197 = product of:
  0.04125598 = sum of:
    0.04125598 = product of:
      0.08251196 = sum of:
        0.08251196 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08251196 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, 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=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.008168268 = product of:
  0.040841337 = sum of:
    0.040841337 = product of:
      0.081682675 = sum of:
        0.081682675 = weight(_text_:22 in 3175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081682675 = score(doc=3175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3175, 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=3175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Computers in libraries. 19(1999) no.5, S.22-28

0.008168268 = product of:
  0.040841337 = sum of:
    0.040841337 = product of:
      0.081682675 = sum of:
        0.081682675 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081682675 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.008168268 = product of:
  0.040841337 = sum of:
    0.040841337 = product of:
      0.081682675 = sum of:
        0.081682675 = weight(_text_:22 in 4224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081682675 = score(doc=4224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4224, 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=4224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22