Search (83 results, page 1 of 5)

0.067527905 = product of:
  0.23634765 = sum of:
    0.1595096 = weight(_text_:united in 6081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1595096 = score(doc=6081,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.7012641 = fieldWeight in 6081, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6081)
    0.07683804 = product of:
      0.15367608 = sum of:
        0.15367608 = weight(_text_:states in 6081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15367608 = score(doc=6081,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.6883215 = fieldWeight in 6081, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6081)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

LCSH

MARC System / United States

Subject

MARC System / United States

0.047749437 = product of:
  0.16712302 = sum of:
    0.112790324 = weight(_text_:united in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.112790324 = score(doc=8041,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
    0.0543327 = product of:
      0.1086654 = sum of:
        0.1086654 = weight(_text_:states in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1086654 = score(doc=8041,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Here is the standard for representing and exchanging bibliographic data in machine-readable form in the United States. This comprehensive publication defines the structure of the MARC bibliographic record in full detail. Also defines the codes and conventions (tags, indicators, subfield codes and codes values) that identify the data elements in USMARC bibliographic records. Includes specifications for a National Level Bibliographic record (both full and minimal). The remaining future format integration changes are specified

0.03444107 = product of:
  0.24108748 = sum of:
    0.24108748 = weight(_text_:industry in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24108748 = score(doc=3895,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2351482 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        1.0252576 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes the work of the British and European book industry communication stadards organizations BIC (Book Industry Communication) in the UK, EDItEUR (its pan-European counterpart), and BISAC (Book Industry Systems Advisory Committe). The work of the organisations enables collaboration between the publishing, bookselling, library and manufacturing sectors of the industry worldwide. Discusses Electronic Data Interchange (EDI); TeleOrdering; the international EDIFACT standard, EDI with SGML; and published lists of mandatory and recommended data elements for publishers' bibliographic databases

0.029826844 = product of:
  0.2087879 = sum of:
    0.2087879 = weight(_text_:industry in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2087879 = score(doc=9,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2351482 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.8878992 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Report commissioned by Book Industry Communications (BIC) and funded by the British National Bibliography Research Fund and the Britsh National Bibliographic Service. The aims of the project were: to review the provisions for bibliographic data within EDIFACT (Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport); to compare those provisions with the BIC draft standards for bibliographic databases and the book publishing industry, and to examine the implications for MARC based databases, such as UKMARC

0.02421702 = product of:
  0.08475957 = sum of:
    0.06827985 = weight(_text_:management in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06827985 = score(doc=4748,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.49963182 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
    0.016479723 = product of:
      0.032959446 = sum of:
        0.032959446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032959446 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152

0.017220534 = product of:
  0.12054374 = sum of:
    0.12054374 = weight(_text_:industry in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12054374 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2351482 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A discussion document produced following a meeting the Users of Book Industry Standards (UBIS) Bibliographic Standards Working Group at the University of London as part of a project to consider the Survey on the use of UK-MARC by Russell Sweeney published in 1991 by the British Library National Bibliographic Service. Considers the suitability, or otherwise, of the UKMARC format for use in OPACs. Summarizes the issues involved, discussing: the UKMARC exchange format, tagging and coding structure (record complexity, analytical entries, non filing indicators), data content (statements of responsibility, main versus added entry) and records standards

0.017220534 = product of:
  0.12054374 = sum of:
    0.12054374 = weight(_text_:industry in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12054374 = score(doc=5104,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2351482 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes the characteristics of de jure standards developed by the formal standards organizations (ISO, ANSI, and NISO) and formal industry groups, and de facto standards developed by informal, self selected groups and companies. Compares this process with that used to develop Internet standards. Examines 3 key standards for the library community on this basis: standards that form the basis for encoding bibliographic data (MARC); standards for electronic documents (SGML-based), and standards for ordering and purchasing bibliographic items (EDIFACT-based)

0.0156718 = product of:
  0.0548513 = sum of:
    0.035624955 = weight(_text_:management in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035624955 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
    0.019226344 = product of:
      0.03845269 = sum of:
        0.03845269 = weight(_text_:22 in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03845269 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2862, 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=2862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Paper presented at a symposium on 'Implementing the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Controlled Vocabulary in the Extended MARC format', held at the 1989 Annual Conference of the Art Libraries Society of North America. The only way to get bibliographic records on to campus on-line library catalogues, and slide records on the national bibliographic utilities, is through the use of MARC. Discusses the importance of having individual slide and photograph records on the national bibliographic utilities, and considers the obstacles which currently make this difficult. Discusses mapping to MARC from data base management systems.

Date

4.12.1995 22:51:36

0.0150679685 = product of:
  0.105475776 = sum of:
    0.105475776 = weight(_text_:industry in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105475776 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2351482 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

With the introduction of the microcomputer in the 1980s, a revolution of sorts was initiated. In libraries this was evidenced by the acquisition of personal computers and the software to run on them. All that catalogers needed were cataloging rules and a MARC format to ensure their bibliographic control. However, little did catalogers realize they were dealing with an industry that introduced rapid technological changes, which effected continual revision of existing rules and the formulation of special guidelines to deal with the industry's innovative products. This article focuses on the attempts of libraries and organized cataloging groups to develop the Chapter 9 descriptive cataloging rules in AACR2; it highlights selected events and includes cataloging examples that illustrate the evolution of the chapter.

0.014921699 = product of:
  0.052225944 = sum of:
    0.035246976 = weight(_text_:united in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035246976 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.15495893 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.016978968 = product of:
      0.033957936 = sum of:
        0.033957936 = weight(_text_:states in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033957936 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.152099 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.012084679 = product of:
  0.084592745 = sum of:
    0.084592745 = weight(_text_:united in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084592745 = score(doc=2327,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

MARC is an acronym for Machine Readable Catalogue or Cataloguing. This general description, howcver, is rather misleading as MARC is neither a kind of catalogue nor a method of cataloguing. In fact, MARC is a Standardformat for representing bibliographic information for handling by computer. While the MARC format was primarily designed to serve the needs of libraries, the concept has since been embraced by the wider information community as a convenient way of storing and exchanging bibliographic data. The original MARC format was developed at the Library of Congress in 1965-6 leading to a pilot project, known as MARC I, which had the aim of investigating the feasibility of producing machine-readable catalogue data. Similar work was in progress in the United Kingdom whcre the Council of the British National Bibliography had set up the BNB MARC Project with the rennt of examining the use of machine-readable data in producing the printed British National Bibliography (BNB). These parallel developments led to Anglo-American co-operation an the MARC 11 project which was initiated in 1968. MARC II was to prove instrumental in defining the concept of MARC as a communications format.

0.011632639 = product of:
  0.08142847 = sum of:
    0.08142847 = weight(_text_:management in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08142847 = score(doc=2,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.5958457 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Microcomputers for information management. 6(1989), S.197-205

0.0101785585 = product of:
  0.07124991 = sum of:
    0.07124991 = weight(_text_:management in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07124991 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.521365 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0072703995 = product of:
  0.050892793 = sum of:
    0.050892793 = weight(_text_:management in 4960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050892793 = score(doc=4960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.37240356 = fieldWeight in 4960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4960)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Vgl. als Verbindung zu Content-Management-Systemen: Contentmanager.de

0.0072703995 = product of:
  0.050892793 = sum of:
    0.050892793 = weight(_text_:management in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050892793 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.37240356 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Adaptation of standards and formats to the computerized management of bibliographic records

0.0066588144 = product of:
  0.0466117 = sum of:
    0.0466117 = product of:
      0.0932234 = sum of:
        0.0932234 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0932234 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, 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=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.0062779905 = product of:
  0.04394593 = sum of:
    0.04394593 = product of:
      0.08789186 = sum of:
        0.08789186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08789186 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, 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=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.0061691385 = product of:
  0.043183967 = sum of:
    0.043183967 = weight(_text_:management in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043183967 = score(doc=1323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.

0.0058163195 = product of:
  0.040714234 = sum of:
    0.040714234 = weight(_text_:management in 7797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040714234 = score(doc=7797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 7797, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7797)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Despite the extensive use of automation for archive management the creation of ISAD(G) (General International Standard Archival Description) was only accepted in January 1992. A special adaptation of the ISBD had already enabled a start to be made on creating MARC format records for archive collections. ISAD(G) will facilitate the exchange of data among collections. Whether the new standard will be suitable for all forms of archive depends on the willingness of archivists to adopt new technology

0.0058163195 = product of:
  0.040714234 = sum of:
    0.040714234 = weight(_text_:management in 4351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040714234 = score(doc=4351,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 4351, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4351)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Technical services management: 1965-1990. A quarter of a century of change and a look into the future. Festschrift for Kathryn Luther Henderson. Ed.: L.C. Smith et al