Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02286838 = product of:
  0.09147352 = sum of:
    0.09147352 = product of:
      0.18294704 = sum of:
        0.18294704 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18294704 = score(doc=836,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.736004 = fieldWeight in 836, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=836)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliography provides a compelling vantage from which to study the interconnection of classification, rhetoric, and the making of knowledge. Bibliography, and the related activities of classification and retrieval, bears a direct relationship to textual studies and rhetoric. The paper examines this relationship by briefly tracing the development of bibliography forward into issues concomitant with the emergence of classification for retrieval. A striking similarity to problems raised in rhetoric and which spring from common concerns and intellectual sources is demonstrated around Gadamer's notion of intellectual horizon. Classification takes place within a horizon of material conditions and social constraints that are best viewed through a hermeneutic or deconstructive lens, termed the "classificatory horizon."

0.0212187 = product of:
  0.0848748 = sum of:
    0.0848748 = sum of:
      0.06035687 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06035687 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04524064 = queryNorm
          0.24281834 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.02451793 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02451793 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04524064 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

0.011316912 = product of:
  0.04526765 = sum of:
    0.04526765 = product of:
      0.0905353 = sum of:
        0.0905353 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0905353 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.3642275 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In free classification, each concept is expressed by a constant notation, and classmarks are formed by free combinations of them, allowing the retrieval of records from a database by searching any of the component concepts. A refinement of free classification is freely faceted classification, where notation can include facets, expressing the kind of relations held between the concepts. The Integrative Level Classification project aims at testing free and freely faceted classification by applying them to small bibliographical samples in various domains. A sample, called the Dandelion Bibliography of Facet Analysis, is described here. Experience was gained using this system to classify 300 specialized papers dealing with facet analysis itself recorded on a MySQL database and building a Web interface exploiting freely faceted notation. The interface is written in PHP and uses string functions to process the queries and to yield relevant results selected and ordered according to the principles of integrative levels.

0.011316912 = product of:
  0.04526765 = sum of:
    0.04526765 = product of:
      0.0905353 = sum of:
        0.0905353 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 1766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0905353 = score(doc=1766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.3642275 = fieldWeight in 1766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify the ontological and epistemological basis of classification. Design/methodology/approach - Attention is drawn to a 1785 article on abstraction by Thomas Reid and the contents and theories of the article are explained. The Reid article both provides a sound approach to classification and is interesting historically as it influenced the classification pioneer Charles Ammi Cutter who, in turn, is responsible for much of the modern theory of functional bibliography. Reid's account is supplemented by brief descriptions of fallibilism and fuzziness. An associated view, Aristotelian essentialism is explained and criticized. Some observations are offered on the role of prototypes in classification and on the monothetic-polythetic distinction. Findings - Reid's theories, suitably embedded in fallibilism and augmented with a respect for truth, provide a sound ontological and epistemological basis for classification. Originality/value - Reid's essay, together with an appreciation of fallibility and determinate and indeterminate properties, amount to a good basic theoretical foundation for cataloging.

0.010543911 = product of:
  0.042175643 = sum of:
    0.042175643 = product of:
      0.08435129 = sum of:
        0.08435129 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08435129 = score(doc=2467,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.33934894 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.

0.009194223 = product of:
  0.036776893 = sum of:
    0.036776893 = product of:
      0.073553786 = sum of:
        0.073553786 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073553786 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.009194223 = product of:
  0.036776893 = sum of:
    0.036776893 = product of:
      0.073553786 = sum of:
        0.073553786 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073553786 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.009194223 = product of:
  0.036776893 = sum of:
    0.036776893 = product of:
      0.073553786 = sum of:
        0.073553786 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073553786 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.0061294823 = product of:
  0.02451793 = sum of:
    0.02451793 = product of:
      0.04903586 = sum of:
        0.04903586 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04903586 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.0061294823 = product of:
  0.02451793 = sum of:
    0.02451793 = product of:
      0.04903586 = sum of:
        0.04903586 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04903586 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0061294823 = product of:
  0.02451793 = sum of:
    0.02451793 = product of:
      0.04903586 = sum of:
        0.04903586 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04903586 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.0061294823 = product of:
  0.02451793 = sum of:
    0.02451793 = product of:
      0.04903586 = sum of:
        0.04903586 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04903586 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.1-22

0.005363297 = product of:
  0.021453189 = sum of:
    0.021453189 = product of:
      0.042906377 = sum of:
        0.042906377 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042906377 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.005363297 = product of:
  0.021453189 = sum of:
    0.021453189 = product of:
      0.042906377 = sum of:
        0.042906377 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042906377 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.005363297 = product of:
  0.021453189 = sum of:
    0.021453189 = product of:
      0.042906377 = sum of:
        0.042906377 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042906377 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.22-36

0.0047153803 = product of:
  0.018861521 = sum of:
    0.018861521 = product of:
      0.037723042 = sum of:
        0.037723042 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037723042 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.15176146 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.

0.0045971116 = product of:
  0.018388446 = sum of:
    0.018388446 = product of:
      0.036776893 = sum of:
        0.036776893 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036776893 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0045971116 = product of:
  0.018388446 = sum of:
    0.018388446 = product of:
      0.036776893 = sum of:
        0.036776893 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036776893 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

0.0045971116 = product of:
  0.018388446 = sum of:
    0.018388446 = product of:
      0.036776893 = sum of:
        0.036776893 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036776893 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)

0.0045971116 = product of:
  0.018388446 = sum of:
    0.018388446 = product of:
      0.036776893 = sum of:
        0.036776893 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036776893 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik