Search (130 results, page 2 of 7)

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=5979,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 5979, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5979)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While there is a huge literature devoted to information literacy (IL), much of which is devoted to course or content design and some sort of assessment. What is presented in this paper is the proposition that the design of IL would benefit greatly by the infusion of the development of consciousness and conscious states. The understanding of consciousness and its place in the absorption of information, and ultimately, knowledge growth is presented. Design/methodology/approach Reviews of information literacy (brief) and consciousness (more extensive) are applied to the proposition that consciousness is an essential element of successful information literacy instruction. The reviews are of a critical nature. Findings Consciousness and its complexity are explicated to a considerable extent. While there are somewhat varied conceptions of consciousness, a relatively unified definition is suggested. The complexities of consciousness and its development render students more able to explicate the agreements and disagreements in the information landscape. In short, a developed consciousness among students makes for more critical approaches to difficult informational events. Then, the connections between IL and consciousness, which includes the awareness of informational states, conclude the paper. Research limitations/implications This paper offers a new mode for an inquiry into the content and structure of information literacy instruction. Originality/value The paper adds a heretofore unattended condition for success in information literacy for instructors and students.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Performance assessment is ubiquitous and crucial in people analytics. Scientific impact, particularly, plays a significant role in the academia. This paper attempts to understand researchers' career trajectories by considering the research community as a social network, where individuals build ties with each other via coauthorship. The resulting linkage facilitates information flow and affects researchers' future impact. Consequently, we systematically investigate the career trajectories of researchers with respect to research impact using the social capital theory as our theoretical foundation. Specifically, for early-stage and mid-career academics, we find that connections with prominent researchers associate with greater impact. Brokerage positions, in addition, are beneficial to a researcher's research impact in the long run. For senior researchers, however, the only social network feature that significantly affects their future impact is the reputation of their recently built ties. Finally, we build predictive models on future research impact which can be leveraged by both organizations and individuals. This paper provides empirical evidence for how social networks provide signals on researchers' career dynamics guided by social capital theory. Our findings have implications for individual researchers to strategically plan and promote their careers and for research institutions to better evaluate current as well as prospective employees.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The present study contributes to the development of integrated models for information behavior and practices at the domain-specific level. To this end, the model for everyday information practices proposed by Savolainen in 2008 is enhanced by integrating the element of information creating, based on Thomson's recent 2018 study. The integration resulted in the expanded model for everyday information practices. Using conceptual analysis, the above model was examined in light of conventional (positivist and post-positivist) and interpretive (social constructivist) criteria for theory assessment. The findings suggest that the integrated model meets best the interpretive criteria such as meaningfulness and understandability, mutuality of concepts and descriptive logic, empirical verifiability, and usefulness. In contrast, theoretical potential of the model is fairly limited when weighed against the conventional criteria, such as generalization and prediction. Overall, the findings suggest that, in its current form, the expanded model cannot be regarded as a "genuine theory" of everyday information practices. However, the model does incorporate many of the qualities characteristic of social scientific theories, and thus exhibits considerable theoretical potential. This is even more so if the interpretive, naturalistic basis of the data in which the expanded model is based is considered.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For decades, we have been told we live in the "information age"-a time when disruptive technological advancement has reshaped the categories and social uses of knowledge and when quantitative assessment is increasingly privileged. Such methodologies and concepts of information are usually considered the provenance of the natural and social sciences, which present them as politically and philosophically neutral. Yet the humanities should and do play an important role in interpreting and critiquing the historical, cultural, and conceptual nature of information. This book is one of two companion volumes that explore theories and histories of information from a humanistic perspective. They consider information as a long-standing feature of social, cultural, and conceptual management, a matter of social practice, and a fundamental challenge for the humanities today. Information: A Reader provides an introduction to the concept of information in historical, literary, and cultural studies. It features excerpts from more than forty texts by theorists and critics who have helped establish the notion of the "information age" or expand upon it. The reader establishes a canonical framework for thinking about information in humanistic terms. Together with Information: Keywords, it sets forth a major humanistic vision of the concept of information.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An exploratory study investigated the factors affecting digital literacy training offered by local community organizations, such as public libraries. Theory based on the educational assessment and information literacy instruction literatures, community informatics, and situated learning theory served as a lens of investigation. Case studies of two public libraries and five other local community organizations were carried out. Data collection comprised: one-on-one interviews with administrators, instructors, and community members who received training; analysis of training documents; observations of training sessions; and a survey administered to clients who participated in these training sessions. Data analysis yielded the generation of a holistic conceptual framework. The framework identifies salient factors of the learning environment and program components that affect learning outcomes arising from digital literacy training led by local community organizations. Theoretical propositions are made. Member checks confirmed the validity of the study's findings. Results are compared to prior theory. Recommendations for practice highlight the need to organize and train staff, acquire sustainable funding, reach marginalized populations, offer convenient training times to end-users, better market the training, share and adopt best practices, and better collect and analyze program performance measurement data. Implications for future research also are identified.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Algorithms influence every facet of modern life: criminal justice, education, housing, entertainment, elections, social media, news feeds, work... the list goes on. Delegating important decisions to machines, however, gives rise to deep moral concerns about responsibility, transparency, freedom, fairness, and democracy. Algorithms and Autonomy connects these concerns to the core human value of autonomy in the contexts of algorithmic teacher evaluation, risk assessment in criminal sentencing, predictive policing, background checks, news feeds, ride-sharing platforms, social media, and election interference. Using these case studies, the authors provide a better understanding of machine fairness and algorithmic transparency. They explain why interventions in algorithmic systems are necessary to ensure that algorithms are not used to control citizens' participation in politics and undercut democracy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=1019,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1019, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1019)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The American state of Alabama has recently developed a national notoriety as a toxic place for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning/queer (LGBTQ+) people owing to several laws that have supported human rights violations and denied their civil liberties. This case study assesses how Alabama's public libraries are providing culturally relevant web access and coverage to LGBTQ+ information to meet their needs/concerns in a region that is oppressive to sexual and gender minorities. In the process, it illustrates public libraries' emerging role as simultaneously impotent to the majority's infringements, while finding creative ways to serve as counter narrative spaces of resistance representing "voices" of, and from, the margins. This exploratory assessment is based on documenting web-based information for LGBTQ+ people in Alabama's 230 public libraries and identifies seven intersectional examples of information offerings, categorized into three groupings: (a) information sources (collections, resources); (b) information policy/planning (assigned role, strategic representation); (c) connections (internal, external, news/events). It provides a taxonomic framework with representative examples that challenge the regional stereotype of solely deficit marginalization. The discussion provides new opportunities to build collaborations of sharing within Alabama's public library networks to better address LGBTQ+ concerns and inequities in their local and regional communities.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=1050,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This brief communication conveys a critical assessment of the benefits, challenges, and potential of Open Access Institutional Repositories (OAIRs) for knowledge sharing in South Africa. The review identifies best practices and recommendations to promote and improve their usage. Researchers need training and support to understand guidelines and best practices for depositing their work. Limited funding for OAIRs can be addressed by government funding or exploring alternative models. Legal and policy frameworks must support OAIRs and ensure they comply with international standards. Proper management and indexing policies enhance institutional visibility and information retrieval. OAIRs promote collaboration and cooperation among researchers and provide a platform for knowledge sharing and feedback. Standardized platforms and frameworks ensure digital outputs are accessible and usable for the academic community. Sharing knowledge on self-archiving encourages researchers to deposit their works. Formal reviews must focus on metadata and ensure that articles are from DHET-accredited journals and that theses and dissertations meet institutional requirements. These efforts promote open access and preserve scholarly works for future generations.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=1071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge of ovarian cancer patients' information practices around cancer genetic testing (GT) is needed to inform interventions that promote patient access to GT-related information. We interviewed 21 ovarian cancer patients and survivors who had GT as part of the treatment process and analyzed the transcripts using the qualitative content analysis method. We found that patients' information practices, manifested in their information-seeking mode, information sources utilized, information assessment, and information use, showed three distinct styles: passive, semi-active, and active. Patients with the passive style primarily received information from clinical sources, encountered information, or delegated information-seeking to family members; they were not inclined to assess information themselves and seldom used it to learn or influence others. Women with semi-active and active styles adopted more active information-seeking modes to approach information, utilized information sources beyond clinical settings, attempted to assess the information found, and actively used it to learn, educate others, or advocate GT to family and friends. Guided by the social ecological model, we found multiple levels of influences, including personal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and societal, acting as motivators or barriers to patients' information practice. Based on these findings, we discussed strategies to promote patient access to GT-related information.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=1191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

GLAM organizations have been digitizing their collections and making them available for the public for several decades. Recent methods for publishing digital collections such as "GLAM Labs" and "Collections as Data" provide guidelines for the application of computational methods to reuse the contents of cultural heritage institutions in innovative and creative ways. Jupyter Notebooks have become a powerful tool to foster use of these collections by digital humanities researchers. Based on previous approaches for quality assessment, which have been adapted for cultural heritage collections, this paper proposes a methodology for assessing the quality of projects based on Jupyter Notebooks published by relevant GLAM institutions. A list of projects based on Jupyter Notebooks using cultural heritage data has been evaluated. Common features and best practices have been identified. A detailed analysis, that can be useful for organizations interested in creating their own Jupyter Notebooks projects, has been provided. Open issues requiring further work and additional avenues for exploration are outlined.

0.020628018 = product of:
  0.041256037 = sum of:
    0.041256037 = product of:
      0.08251207 = sum of:
        0.08251207 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08251207 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, 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=4156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 3.2020 14:08:22

0.020628018 = product of:
  0.041256037 = sum of:
    0.041256037 = product of:
      0.08251207 = sum of:
        0.08251207 = weight(_text_:22 in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08251207 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1203, 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=1203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2023, H.10, S.22-24

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 5723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=5723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 1.2020 22:15:11

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 5846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=5846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:40

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:28

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2020 19:11:24

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2020 19:16:24

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 5.2021 22:10:24

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2023, H.1, S.22-25