Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.035898242 = product of:
  0.071796484 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The selection and representation of concepts in indexing of the same documents in 2 databases of library and information studies are considered. the authors compare the indexing of 49 documents in KINF and LISA. They focus on the types of concepts presented in indexing, the degree of concept consistency in indexing, and similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts. The largest group of indexed concepts in both databases was the category of entities while concepts belonging to the category of properties were almost missing in both databases. The second largest group of indexed concepts in KINF was the category of activities and in LISA the category of dimensions. Although the concept consistency between KINF and LISA remained rather low and was only 34%, there were approximately 2,2 concepts per document which were indexed from the same documents in both databses. These common concepts belonged mostly to the category of entities

Date

24. 2.1999 21:29:51

0.035898242 = product of:
  0.071796484 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Five controlled vocabularies currently used for content representation in collections of non art moving images were examined to determine their level of conceptual compatibility. Methods borrowed from previous research in the area of indexing language compatibility were used. Quantitative data and qualitative observations allowed us to estimate more precisely and realistically the actual degree of conceptual redundancy in these indexing languages. It was found that the conceptual overlap is high enough to justify the pursuit of research and development work an a common basic indexing and access language that could be used to name objects, events, categories of persons, and relations most frequently depicted in non art moving image collections.

Date

29. 8.2004 16:17:19

0.025036886 = product of:
  0.100147545 = sum of:
    0.100147545 = weight(_text_:representation in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100147545 = score(doc=4292,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Subject indexing plays an important role in supporting subject access to information resources. Current subject indexing systems do not make adequate distinctions on the importance of assigned subject descriptors. Assigning numeric weights to subject descriptors to distinguish their importance to the documents can strengthen the role of subject metadata. Automated methods are more cost-effective. This study compares different automated weighting methods in different environments. Two evaluation methods were used to assess the performance. Experiments on three datasets in the biomedical domain suggest the performance of different weighting methods depends on whether it is an abstract or full text environment. Mutual information with bag-of-words representation shows the best average performance in the full text environment, while cosine with bag-of-words representation is the best in an abstract environment. The cosine measure has relatively consistent and robust performance. A direct weighting method, IDF (Inverse Document Frequency), can produce quick and reasonable estimates of the weights. Bag-of-words representation generally outperforms the concept-based representation. Further improvement in performance can be obtained by using the learning-to-rank method to integrate different weighting methods. This study follows up Lu and Mao (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1776-1784, 2015), in which an automated weighted subject indexing method was proposed and validated. The findings from this study contribute to more effective weighted subject indexing.

0.0212445 = product of:
  0.084978 = sum of:
    0.084978 = weight(_text_:representation in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084978 = score(doc=5262,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.4313432 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study was based on the collection examnined by W.H. Shaw (Inf. proc. man. 26(1990) no.6, S.693-703, 705-718), a test collection of 1239 articles, indexed with the term cystic fibrosis; and 100 queries with 3 sets of relevance evaluations from subject experts. The effect of variations in indexing exhaustivity on retrieval performance in a vector space retrieval system was investigated by using a term weight threshold to construct different document representations for a test collection. Retrieval results showed that retrieval performance, as measured by the mean optimal measure for all queries at a term weight threshold, was highest at the most exhaustive representation, and decreased slightly as terms were eliminated and the indexing representation became less exhaustive. The findings suggest that the vector space model is more robust against variations in indexing exhaustivity that is the single-link clustering model

0.020029508 = product of:
  0.08011803 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=4473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper discusses the consistency of fiction indexing of library professionals and patrons based on an empirical test. Indexing was carried out with a Finnish fictional thesaurus and all of the test persons indexed the same five novels. The consistency of indexing was determined to be low; several reasons are postulated. Also an algorithm for typified indexing of fiction is given as well as some suggestions for the development of fiction information retrieval systems and content representation.

0.015022131 = product of:
  0.060088523 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.012518443 = product of:
  0.050073773 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=7151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases

0.0068172095 = product of:
  0.027268838 = sum of:
    0.027268838 = product of:
      0.08180651 = sum of:
        0.08180651 = weight(_text_:theory in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08180651 = score(doc=554,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.4594418 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The development of regional on-line catalogs and in-house information systems for retrieval of references provide examples of the impact of indexing theory and applications on technical processing. More emphasis must be given to understanding the techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of a file, irrespective of whether that file was created as a library catalog or an index to information sources. The most significant advances in classification theory in recent decades has been as a result of efforts to improve effectiveness of indexing systems. Library classification systems are indexing languages or systems. Courses offered for the preparation of indexers in the United States and the United Kingdom are reviewed. A point of congruence for both the indexer and the library classifier would appear to be the need for a thorough preparation in the techniques of subject analysis. Any subject heading list will suffer from omissions as well as the inclusion of terms which the patron will never use. Indexing theory has provided the technical services department with methods for evaluation of effectiveness. The writer does not believe that these techniques are used, nor do current courses, workshops, and continuing education programs stress them. When theory is totally subjugated to practice, critical thinking and maximum effectiveness will suffer.

0.0058013215 = product of:
  0.023205286 = sum of:
    0.023205286 = product of:
      0.069615856 = sum of:
        0.069615856 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069615856 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

0.0057845935 = product of:
  0.023138374 = sum of:
    0.023138374 = product of:
      0.06941512 = sum of:
        0.06941512 = weight(_text_:theory in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06941512 = score(doc=4216,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3898493 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible

0.0054537673 = product of:
  0.021815069 = sum of:
    0.021815069 = product of:
      0.06544521 = sum of:
        0.06544521 = weight(_text_:theory in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06544521 = score(doc=4779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 4779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4779)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The interindexer consistency between indexers working in 10 libraries was considered. The indexing environment is described with the help of organisational theory. Interindexer consistency was low, but there were clear differences depending on whether consistency was calculated on the basis of terms or concepts or aspects. Discusses the indexing environment's connections to interindexer consistency

0.0047720466 = product of:
  0.019088186 = sum of:
    0.019088186 = product of:
      0.057264555 = sum of:
        0.057264555 = weight(_text_:theory in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057264555 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Melvil Dewey provided generally applicable classification guidelines or rules with his classification schedules, beginning with the second edition of his scheme. Many cataloging textbooks have adopted these guidelines. Recent editions of the DDC, however, provide considerably changed, quite intricate, and edition-specific rules. The resulting two different sets of classification rules are similar in theory but very different in application. Classifiers must be aware of both sets. They are summarized in two decision charts that are intended to illustrate the differences and similarities between the two sets of rules and to encourage consistent classification decisions. The need is expressed for a parallel, end-user-oriented searching code

0.0047720466 = product of:
  0.019088186 = sum of:
    0.019088186 = product of:
      0.057264555 = sum of:
        0.057264555 = weight(_text_:theory in 235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057264555 = score(doc=235,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 235, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=235)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper examines main problems of semantic indexing taking into consideration the connection with the needs of scientific research, in particular in the field of Social Sciences. Multi-modal indexing approach, which allows researchers to find documents according to different dimensions of research, is described. Request-oriented indexing and Pragmatic approach are also discussed and, finally, the possibility of assuming as fundamental principle, in indexing, C. S. Peirce theory of Abduction, is outlined.

0.0039026549 = product of:
  0.015610619 = sum of:
    0.015610619 = product of:
      0.046831857 = sum of:
        0.046831857 = weight(_text_:29 in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046831857 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 1.1999 19:31:29

0.0038851013 = product of:
  0.015540405 = sum of:
    0.015540405 = product of:
      0.023310607 = sum of:
        0.011707964 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011707964 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
        0.011602643 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011602643 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

0.0038675477 = product of:
  0.015470191 = sum of:
    0.015470191 = product of:
      0.04641057 = sum of:
        0.04641057 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04641057 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22

0.0034086048 = product of:
  0.013634419 = sum of:
    0.013634419 = product of:
      0.040903255 = sum of:
        0.040903255 = weight(_text_:theory in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040903255 = score(doc=4488,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to report a project to investigate the degree of inter-indexer consistency in the assignment of controlled vocabulary topical subject index terms to identical graphical images by different indexers at the National Library of Wales (NLW). Design/methodology/approach - An experimental quantitative methodology was devised to investigate inter-indexer consistency. Additionally, the project investigated the relationship, if any, between indexing exhaustivity and consistency, and the relationship, if any, between indexing consistency/exhaustivity and broad category of graphic format. Findings - Inter-indexer consistency in the assignment of topical subject index terms to graphic materials at the NLW was found to be generally low and highly variable. Inter-indexer consistency fell within the range 10.8 per cent to 48.0 per cent. Indexing exhaustivity varied substantially from indexer to indexer, with a mean assignment of 3.8 terms by each indexer to each image, falling within the range 2.5 to 4.7 terms. The broad category of graphic format, whether photographic or non-photographic, was found to have little influence on either inter-indexer consistency or indexing exhaustivity. Indexing exhaustivity and inter-indexer consistency exhibited a tendency toward a direct, positive relationship. The findings are necessarily limited as this is a small-scale study within a single institution. Originality/value - Previous consistency studies have almost exclusively investigated the indexing of print materials, with very little research published for non-print media. With the literature also rich in discussion of the added complexities of subjectively representing the intellectual content of visual media, this study attempts to enrich existing knowledge on indexing consistency for graphic materials and to address a noticeable gap in information theory.

0.0033841045 = product of:
  0.013536418 = sum of:
    0.013536418 = product of:
      0.04060925 = sum of:
        0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060925 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26

0.0033841045 = product of:
  0.013536418 = sum of:
    0.013536418 = product of:
      0.04060925 = sum of:
        0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060925 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 1.2007 10:22:26

0.0029006607 = product of:
  0.011602643 = sum of:
    0.011602643 = product of:
      0.034807928 = sum of:
        0.034807928 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034807928 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22