Search (139 results, page 1 of 7)

0.04022641 = product of:
  0.14079243 = sum of:
    0.03133921 = weight(_text_:based in 8419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03133921 = score(doc=8419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 8419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8419)
    0.10945322 = weight(_text_:great in 8419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10945322 = score(doc=8419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 8419, 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=8419)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

An alternative publishing system for scholarly communication and information is emerging on international computer networks such as Internet and Bitnet. This is evident as a growing number of electronic periodicals (e-journals) provide scholarly articles, columns and reviews and have advantages over print publications, such as the speed of publication and dissemination. Electronic periodicals hold great promise, but technological problems and academic acceptance could limit their effectiveness. Some examples of electronic periodicals were investigated as well as the advantages and problems currently associated with this new source of information

0.036711447 = product of:
  0.12849006 = sum of:
    0.068408266 = weight(_text_:great in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408266 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4627, 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=4627)
    0.060081802 = product of:
      0.120163605 = sum of:
        0.120163605 = weight(_text_:britain in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120163605 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29147226 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.4122643 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers' perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.

0.028380547 = product of:
  0.19866382 = sum of:
    0.19866382 = weight(_text_:businesses in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19866382 = score(doc=4778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29628533 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.5860133 = idf(docFreq=60, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.6705152 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.5860133 = idf(docFreq=60, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.021556493 = product of:
  0.07544772 = sum of:
    0.054281104 = weight(_text_:based in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054281104 = score(doc=3620,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.4612686 = fieldWeight in 3620, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3620)
    0.021166623 = product of:
      0.042333245 = sum of:
        0.042333245 = weight(_text_:22 in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042333245 = score(doc=3620,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3620, 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=3620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Describes an approach for developing adaptive textbooks and presents InterBook - an authoring tool based on this approach which simplifies the development of adaptive electronic textbooks on the Web

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

Theme

Computer Based Training

0.021285411 = product of:
  0.14899787 = sum of:
    0.14899787 = weight(_text_:businesses in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14899787 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29628533 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.5860133 = idf(docFreq=60, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.5028864 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.5860133 = idf(docFreq=60, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Das Informationspapier beschreibt die digitale Nachverfolgung von wissenschaftlichen Aktivitäten. Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler nutzen täglich eine Vielzahl von digitalen Informationsressourcen wie zum Beispiel Literatur- und Volltextdatenbanken. Häufig fallen dabei Nutzungsspuren an, die Aufschluss geben über gesuchte und genutzte Inhalte, Verweildauern und andere Arten der wissenschaftlichen Aktivität. Diese Nutzungsspuren können von den Anbietenden der Informationsressourcen festgehalten, aggregiert und weiterverwendet oder verkauft werden. Das Informationspapier legt die Transformation von Wissenschaftsverlagen hin zu Data Analytics Businesses dar, verweist auf die Konsequenzen daraus für die Wissenschaft und deren Einrichtungen und benennt die zum Einsatz kommenden Typen der Datengewinnung. Damit dient es vor allem der Darstellung gegenwärtiger Praktiken und soll zu Diskussionen über deren Konsequenzen für die Wissenschaft anregen. Es richtet sich an alle Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler sowie alle Akteure in der Wissenschaftslandschaft.

0.01865998 = product of:
  0.06530993 = sum of:
    0.05472661 = weight(_text_:great in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05472661 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
    0.010583311 = product of:
      0.021166623 = sum of:
        0.021166623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021166623 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

0.013681654 = product of:
  0.09577157 = sum of:
    0.09577157 = weight(_text_:great in 8409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09577157 = score(doc=8409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 8409, 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=8409)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

While reuse is currently the focus of much attention in the programming language community, it is also a central, but less noticed, issue in the creation and use of documents, and therefore in the design of document systems. To a great extend, the work of producing new documents, and new versions of old documents, involves reusing pieces of previously existing documents, where reuse involves finding the relevant material, modifying it as needed, and stitching the pieces together. Aims to demonstrate how a focus on reuse can shed light on current efforts to build structured document systems and to design and use standards, such as SGML, ODA and OLE, that address structured and compound documents

0.013681654 = product of:
  0.09577157 = sum of:
    0.09577157 = weight(_text_:great in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09577157 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 2833, 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=2833)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The telecommunications service is a scientific tool which libraries should use to save time in supplying information. Information can be read, retrieved, copied or discussed immediately with the help of electronic publishing. The service has great social potential. International cooperation is important yet national identity must be maintained and access to information guaranteed. If librarians regard electronic publishing simply as a technology, the readers will not accept it and the system will become ineffectual. More research is needed on copyright law problems. Electronic publishing improves data bank access and should overcome inequalities between regions and sections of the population.

0.013126459 = product of:
  0.045942605 = sum of:
    0.02742181 = weight(_text_:based in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02742181 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
    0.018520795 = product of:
      0.03704159 = sum of:
        0.03704159 = weight(_text_:22 in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03704159 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3598, 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=3598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Describes an object-oriented model for paper-based multimedia documents such as textbook with embedded graphics. This model is the 1st step towards building a manageable authoring system for the Web, in which documents can be easily built, extended, truncated, reordered, assembled and disassembled on a computer basis, and the document components, can be reused. The model will also make accessible properties, which might be significant or important to the user, especially in searching or classifying documents, such as the document title and author. Explains the model design and presents the class hierarchy for the model

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.011727133 = product of:
  0.08208992 = sum of:
    0.08208992 = weight(_text_:great in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08208992 = score(doc=4210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 4210, 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=4210)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.

0.0116941 = product of:
  0.040929347 = sum of:
    0.02770021 = weight(_text_:based in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02770021 = score(doc=2646,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.013229139 = product of:
      0.026458278 = sum of:
        0.026458278 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026458278 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

0.00977261 = product of:
  0.068408266 = sum of:
    0.068408266 = weight(_text_:great in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408266 = score(doc=1911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 1911, 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=1911)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This article aims to focus on usage data in respect to full-text downloads of journal articles, which is considered an important usage (satisfaction) metric by librarians and publishers. The purpose is to evaluate the evidence regarding full-text viewing by pooling together data on the full-text viewing of tens of thousands of users studied as part of a number of investigations of e-journal databases conducted during the Virtual Scholar research programme. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the web logs of a number of electronic journal libraries including OhioLINK and ScienceDirect using Deep Log Analysis, which is a more sophisticated form of transactional log analysis. The frequency, characteristics and diversity of full-text viewing are examined. The article also features an investigation into the time spent online viewing full-text articles in order to get a clearer understanding of the significance of full-text viewing, especially in regard to reading. Findings - The main findings are that there is a great deal of variety amongst scholars in their full-text viewing habits and that a large proportion of views are very cursory in nature, although there is survey evidence to suggest that reading goes on offline. Originality/value - This is the first time that full-text viewing evidence is studied on such a large scale.

0.009355281 = product of:
  0.03274348 = sum of:
    0.022160169 = weight(_text_:based in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022160169 = score(doc=4631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.010583311 = product of:
      0.021166623 = sum of:
        0.021166623 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021166623 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, 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=4631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.00895406 = product of:
  0.06267842 = sum of:
    0.06267842 = weight(_text_:based in 7756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06267842 = score(doc=7756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.5326271 = fieldWeight in 7756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7756)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.007914346 = product of:
  0.05540042 = sum of:
    0.05540042 = weight(_text_:based in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05540042 = score(doc=973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.47078028 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Introduction to people familiar with the concepts and syntax of SGML to the functionality provided by the new ISO 10744 standard. HyTime: the Hypermedia and Time Based Structuring Language, in producing hypertext information systems

0.007834803 = product of:
  0.05484362 = sum of:
    0.05484362 = weight(_text_:based in 8749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05484362 = score(doc=8749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.46604872 = fieldWeight in 8749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8749)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0075595086 = product of:
  0.052916557 = sum of:
    0.052916557 = product of:
      0.10583311 = sum of:
        0.10583311 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10583311 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 3204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

RRZK-Kompass. 1995, Nr.65, S.21-22

0.006414456 = product of:
  0.04490119 = sum of:
    0.04490119 = product of:
      0.08980238 = sum of:
        0.08980238 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08980238 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4823, 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=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
18. 6.2000 9:11:22

0.006047607 = product of:
  0.042333245 = sum of:
    0.042333245 = product of:
      0.08466649 = sum of:
        0.08466649 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08466649 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5919, 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=5919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Infodoc. 19(1993) H.3, S.20-22

0.006047607 = product of:
  0.042333245 = sum of:
    0.042333245 = product of:
      0.08466649 = sum of:
        0.08466649 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08466649 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6381, 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=6381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.22