Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028298689 = product of:
  0.16979213 = sum of:
    0.16979213 = weight(_text_:network in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16979213 = score(doc=3083,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.84366083 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988-2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis.

0.023558535 = product of:
  0.070675604 = sum of:
    0.04715293 = weight(_text_:computer in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04715293 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
    0.023522673 = product of:
      0.047045346 = sum of:
        0.047045346 = weight(_text_:resources in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047045346 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

0.022048479 = product of:
  0.066145435 = sum of:
    0.049512394 = weight(_text_:network in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049512394 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
    0.016633041 = product of:
      0.033266082 = sum of:
        0.033266082 = weight(_text_:resources in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033266082 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The presence of social networks in complex systems has made networks and community structure a focal point of study in many domains. Previous studies have focused on the structural emergence and growth of communities and on the topics displayed within the network. However, few scholars have closely examined the relationship between the thematic and structural properties of networks. Therefore, this article proposes the Tagger Tag Resource-Latent Dirichlet Allocation-Community model (TTR-LDA-Community model), which combines the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model with the Girvan-Newman community detection algorithm through an inference mechanism. Using social tagging data from Delicious, this article demonstrates the clustering of active taggers into communities, the topic distributions within communities, and the ranking of taggers, tags, and resources within these communities. The data analysis evaluates patterns in community structure and topical affiliations diachronically. The article evaluates the effectiveness of community detection and the inference mechanism embedded in the model and finds that the TTR-LDA-Community model outperforms other traditional models in tag prediction. This has implications for scholars in domains interested in community detection, profiling, and recommender systems.

0.018672295 = product of:
  0.11203376 = sum of:
    0.11203376 = weight(_text_:network in 2704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11203376 = score(doc=2704,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.5566718 = fieldWeight in 2704, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2704)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article provides an alternative perspective for measuring author impact by applying PageRank algorithm to a coauthorship network. A weighted PageRank algorithm considering citation and coauthorship network topology is proposed. We test this algorithm under different damping factors by evaluating author impact in the informetrics research community. In addition, we also compare this weighted PageRank with the h-index, citation, and program committee (PC) membership of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) conferences. Findings show that this weighted PageRank algorithm provides reliable results in measuring author impact.

0.017151598 = product of:
  0.10290959 = sum of:
    0.10290959 = weight(_text_:network in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10290959 = score(doc=3161,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.51133573 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.

0.0166584 = product of:
  0.049975198 = sum of:
    0.033342157 = weight(_text_:computer in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033342157 = score(doc=4012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
    0.016633041 = product of:
      0.033266082 = sum of:
        0.033266082 = weight(_text_:resources in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033266082 = score(doc=4012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.

0.014004219 = product of:
  0.084025316 = sum of:
    0.084025316 = weight(_text_:network in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084025316 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.

0.0127760945 = product of:
  0.076656565 = sum of:
    0.076656565 = sum of:
      0.0399193 = weight(_text_:resources in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399193 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
      0.036737263 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036737263 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.011670183 = product of:
  0.0700211 = sum of:
    0.0700211 = weight(_text_:network in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0700211 = score(doc=4444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Studying scientific collaboration using coauthorship networks has attracted much attention in recent years. How and in what context two authors collaborate remain among the major questions. Previous studies, however, have focused on either exploring the global topology of coauthorship networks (macro perspective) or ranking the impact of individual authors (micro perspective). Neither of them has provided information on the context of the collaboration between two specific authors, which may potentially imply rich socioeconomic, disciplinary, and institutional information on collaboration. Different from the macro perspective and micro perspective, this article proposes a novel method (meso perspective) to analyze scientific collaboration, in which a contextual subgraph is extracted as the unit of analysis. A contextual subgraph is defined as a small subgraph of a large-scale coauthorship network that captures relationship and context between two coauthors. This method is applied to the field of library and information science. Topological properties of all the subgraphs in four time spans are investigated, including size, average degree, clustering coefficient, and network centralization. Results show that contextual subgprahs capture useful contextual information on two authors' collaboration.

0.011670183 = product of:
  0.0700211 = sum of:
    0.0700211 = weight(_text_:network in 2345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0700211 = score(doc=2345,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 2345, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2345)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Text mining has been widely used in multiple types of user-generated data to infer user opinion, but its application to microblogging is difficult because text messages are short and noisy, providing limited information about user opinion. Given that microblogging users communicate with each other to form a social network, we hypothesize that user opinion is influenced by its neighbors in the network. In this paper, we infer user opinion on a topic by combining two factors: the user's historical opinion about relevant topics and opinion influence from his/her neighbors. We thus build a topic-level opinion influence model (TOIM) by integrating both topic factor and opinion influence factor into a unified probabilistic model. We evaluate our model in one of the largest microblogging sites in China, Tencent Weibo, and the experiments show that TOIM outperforms baseline methods in opinion inference accuracy. Moreover, incorporating indirect influence further improves inference recall and f1-measure. Finally, we demonstrate some useful applications of TOIM in analyzing users' behaviors in Tencent Weibo.

0.009902478 = product of:
  0.059414867 = sum of:
    0.059414867 = weight(_text_:network in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059414867 = score(doc=274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.008252066 = product of:
  0.049512394 = sum of:
    0.049512394 = weight(_text_:network in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049512394 = score(doc=5963,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.006668431 = product of:
  0.040010586 = sum of:
    0.040010586 = weight(_text_:computer in 5387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040010586 = score(doc=5387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 5387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5387)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article investigates the lengths of time that publications with different numbers of citations take to receive their first citation (the beginning stage), and then compares the lengths of time to receive two or more citations after receiving the first citation (the accumulative stage) in the field of computer science. We find that in the beginning stage, that is, from zero to one citation, high-, medium-, and low-cited publications do not obviously exhibit different lengths of time. However, in the accumulative stage, that is, from one to N citations, highly cited publications begin to receive citations much more rapidly than medium- and low-cited publications. Moreover, as N increases, the difference in receiving new citations among high-, medium-, and low-cited publications increases quite significantly.

0.0056084236 = product of:
  0.03365054 = sum of:
    0.03365054 = weight(_text_:services in 3426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03365054 = score(doc=3426,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3426, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3426)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With the information overload of user-generated content in microblogging, users find it extremely challenging to browse and find valuable information in their first attempt. In this paper we propose a microblogging recommendation algorithm, TSI-MR (Topic-Level Social Influence-based Microblogging Recommendation), which can significantly improve users' microblogging experiences. The main innovation of this proposed algorithm is that we consider social influences and their indirect structural relationships, which are largely based on social status theory, from the topic level. The primary advantage of this approach is that it can build an accurate description of latent relationships between two users with weak connections, which can improve the performance of the model; furthermore, it can solve sparsity problems of training data to a certain extent. The realization of the model is mainly based on Factor Graph. We also applied a distributed strategy to further improve the efficiency of the model. Finally, we use data from Tencent Weibo, one of the most popular microblogging services in China, to evaluate our methods. The results show that incorporating social influence can improve microblogging performance considerably, and outperform the baseline methods.

0.0048015458 = product of:
  0.028809274 = sum of:
    0.028809274 = product of:
      0.057618547 = sum of:
        0.057618547 = weight(_text_:resources in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057618547 = score(doc=4970,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.349276 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article investigates the dynamic features of social tagging vocabularies in Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube from 2003 to 2008. Three algorithms are designed to study the macro- and micro-tag growth as well as the dynamics of taggers' activities, respectively. Moreover, we propose a Tagger Tag Resource Latent Dirichlet Allocation (TTR-LDA) model to explore the evolution of topics emerging from those social vocabularies. Our results show that (a) at the macro level, tag growth in all the three tagging systems obeys power law distribution with exponents lower than 1; at the micro level, the tag growth of popular resources in all three tagging systems follows a similar power law distribution; (b) the exponents of tag growth vary in different evolving stages of resources; (c) the growth of number of taggers associated with different popular resources presents a feature of convergence over time; (d) the active level of taggers has a positive correlation with the macro-tag growth of different tagging systems; and (e) some topics evolve into several subtopics over time while others experience relatively stable stages in which their contents do not change much, and certain groups of taggers continue their interests in them.

0.0039204457 = product of:
  0.023522673 = sum of:
    0.023522673 = product of:
      0.047045346 = sum of:
        0.047045346 = weight(_text_:resources in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047045346 = score(doc=633,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.

0.0035716784 = product of:
  0.02143007 = sum of:
    0.02143007 = product of:
      0.04286014 = sum of:
        0.04286014 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04286014 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2011 13:02:21