Search (126 results, page 1 of 7)

0.059190843 = product of:
  0.11838169 = sum of:
    0.11838169 = product of:
      0.23676337 = sum of:
        0.23676337 = weight(_text_:opinion in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23676337 = score(doc=1227,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientometric indicators influence the standing of journals among peers, thus affecting decisions regarding manuscript submissions, scholars' careers, and funding. Here we hypothesize that impact-factor boosting (unethical behavior documented previously in several underperforming journals) should not be considered as exceptional, but that it affects even the top-tier journals. We performed a citation analysis of documents recently published in 11 prominent general science and biomedical journals. In these journals, only 12 to 79% of what they publish was considered original research, whereas editorial materials alone constituted 11 to 44% of the total document types published. Citations to commissioned opinion articles comprised 3 to 15% of the total citations to the journals within 3 postpublication years, with even a higher share occurring during the first postpublication year. An additional 4 to 15% of the citations were received by the journals from commissioned opinion articles published in other journals. Combined, the parallel world of uncitable documents was responsible for up to 30% of the total citations to the top-tier journals, with the highest values found for medical science journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and the Lancet) and lower values found for the Science, Nature, and Cell series journals. Self-citations to some of the top-tier journals reach values higher than the total citation counts accumulated by papers in most of the Web of Science-indexed journals. Most of the self-citations were generated by commissioned opinion articles. The parallel world of supposedly uncitable documents flourishes and severely distorts the commonly used scientometric indicators.

0.0502251 = product of:
  0.1004502 = sum of:
    0.1004502 = product of:
      0.2009004 = sum of:
        0.2009004 = weight(_text_:opinion in 2170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2009004 = score(doc=2170,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 2170, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent high-profile statements, criticisms, and boycotts organized against certain quantitative indicators (e.g., the DORA declaration) have brought misuses of performance metrics to the center of attention. A key concern captured in these movements is that the metrics appear to carry authority even where established agents of quality control have explicitly outlined limits to their validity and reliability as measurement tools. This raises a number of challenging questions for those readers of this journal who are implicated in questions of indicator "production" and, by extension, "effects." In this opinion piece we wish to critically engage the question of how producers of indicators can come to terms with their role as (partly) responsible parties in the current age of evaluative bibliometrics. We do so through the illuminating case of the professional scientometrics community.

Series

Opinion paper

0.0502251 = product of:
  0.1004502 = sum of:
    0.1004502 = product of:
      0.2009004 = sum of:
        0.2009004 = weight(_text_:opinion in 5917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2009004 = score(doc=5917,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 5917, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The star-rating mechanism of customer reviews is used universally by the online population to compare and select merchants, movies, products, and services. The consensus opinion from aggregation of star ratings is used as a proxy for item quality. Online reviews are noisy and effective aggregation of star ratings to accurately reflect the "true quality" of products and services is challenging. The mean-rating aggregation model is widely used and other aggregation models are also proposed. These existing aggregation models rely on a large number of reviews to tolerate noise. However, many products rarely have reviews. We propose probabilistic aggregation models for review ratings based on the Dirichlet distribution to combat data sparsity in reviews. We further propose to exploit the "helpfulness" social information and time to filter noisy reviews and effectively aggregate ratings to compute the consensus opinion. Our experiments on an Amazon data set show that our probabilistic aggregation models based on "helpfulness" achieve better performance than the statistical and heuristic baseline approaches.

0.035514507 = product of:
  0.071029015 = sum of:
    0.071029015 = product of:
      0.14205803 = sum of:
        0.14205803 = weight(_text_:opinion in 1380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14205803 = score(doc=1380,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 1380, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1380)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores how the use of electronic information resources has influenced scholars' opinion of their work, and how this is connected to their publication productivity. The data consist of a nationwide Web-based survey of the end-users of FinELib, the Finnish Electronic Library, at all universities in Finland. Scholars feel that the use of electronic literature has improved their work considerably in several ways. This influence can be differentiated into two dimensions. The first one is improved accessibility and availability of literature, and the second is more directly related to the content and quality of scholarly work. The perceived improved access is positively associated with the number of international publications produced, among doctoral students in particular. The more direct influence of e-resource use on the content of scholarly work is, however, not associated with publication productivity. The results seem to imply that investments in academic digital libraries are beneficial for the researchers and for the universities.

0.035514507 = product of:
  0.071029015 = sum of:
    0.071029015 = product of:
      0.14205803 = sum of:
        0.14205803 = weight(_text_:opinion in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14205803 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Opinion paper

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=6113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Co-occurrence matrices, such as cocitation, coword, and colink matrices, have been used widely in the information sciences. However, confusion and controversy have hindered the proper statistical analysis of these data. The underlying problem, in our opinion, involved understanding the nature of various types of matrices. This article discusses the difference between a symmetrical cocitation matrix and an asymmetrical citation matrix as well as the appropriate statistical techniques that can be applied to each of these matrices, respectively. Similarity measures (such as the Pearson correlation coefficient or the cosine) should not be applied to the symmetrical cocitation matrix but can be applied to the asymmetrical citation matrix to derive the proximity matrix. The argument is illustrated with examples. The study then extends the application of co-occurrence matrices to the Web environment, in which the nature of the available data and thus data collection methods are different from those of traditional databases such as the Science Citation Index. A set of data collected with the Google Scholar search engine is analyzed by using both the traditional methods of multivariate analysis and the new visualization software Pajek, which is based on social network analysis and graph theory.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Stressing that some universities have adopted unrealistic requirements for tenure of information systems (IS) faculty members, a recent editorial in MIS Quarterly contends that the group of premier IS journals needs to be generally recognized as having more than just two members. This article introduces the publication power approach to identifying the premier IS journals, and it does indeed find that there are more than two. A journal's publication power is calculated from the actual publishing behaviors of full-time, tenured IS faculty members at a sizable set of leading research universities. The underlying premise is that these researchers produce excellent work, collectively spanning the IS field's subject matter, and that the greatest concentrations of their collective work appear in highest visibility, most important journals suitable for its subject matter. The new empirically based approach to identifying premier IS journals (and, more broadly, identifying journals that figure most prominently in publishing activity of tenured IS researchers) offers an attractive alternative to promulgations by individuals or cliques (possibly based on outdated tradition or vested interests), to opinion surveys (subjective, possibly ill-informed, vague about rating criteria, and/or biased in various ways), and to citation analyses (which ignore semantics of references and, in the case of ISI impact factors, have additional problems that cast considerable doubt on their meaningfulness within the IS field and its subdisciplines). Results of the publication power approach can be applied and supplemented according to needs of a particular university in setting its evaluation standards for IS tenure, promotion, and merit decisions.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.

0.02707463 = product of:
  0.05414926 = sum of:
    0.05414926 = product of:
      0.10829852 = sum of:
        0.10829852 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10829852 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.02707463 = product of:
  0.05414926 = sum of:
    0.05414926 = product of:
      0.10829852 = sum of:
        0.10829852 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10829852 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.02707463 = product of:
  0.05414926 = sum of:
    0.05414926 = product of:
      0.10829852 = sum of:
        0.10829852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10829852 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.023930816 = product of:
  0.047861632 = sum of:
    0.047861632 = product of:
      0.095723264 = sum of:
        0.095723264 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095723264 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.023930816 = product of:
  0.047861632 = sum of:
    0.047861632 = product of:
      0.095723264 = sum of:
        0.095723264 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095723264 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.0236903 = product of:
  0.0473806 = sum of:
    0.0473806 = product of:
      0.0947612 = sum of:
        0.0947612 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0947612 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.0236903 = product of:
  0.0473806 = sum of:
    0.0473806 = product of:
      0.0947612 = sum of:
        0.0947612 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0947612 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.0236903 = product of:
  0.0473806 = sum of:
    0.0473806 = product of:
      0.0947612 = sum of:
        0.0947612 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0947612 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

0.023676338 = product of:
  0.047352675 = sum of:
    0.047352675 = product of:
      0.09470535 = sum of:
        0.09470535 = weight(_text_:opinion in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09470535 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.28944498 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ein britischer Forscher hat sich die Mühe gemacht, die geografischen Muster der Zitierungen von 1981 bis zur Gegenwart freizulegen. Das Ergebnis: Die publizistische Wahrnehmung ist in der Wissenschaft äußerst ungleich verteilt. Die USA dominieren mit großem Abstand vor dem Rest der WeIt. Und auch dort konzentrieren sich die Verweise auf einige wenige Ballungsräume der Forschung. Michael Batty vom Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis in London bediente sich für seine Analyse der Datenbank "ISIHighlyCited.com" (http: //www.isihighlycited.com/), in der Forscher aus verschiedenen Disziplinen aufgelistet werden, die die weltweit meisten Zitate auf sich gezogen haben. In diesen Ranglisten nehmen die akademischen Edelschmieden aus den USA etwa jene Rolle ein, die Österreichische Athleten im Alpinschisport besetzen. Einzig der Forschungsraum London kann mit der Konkurrenz aus Übersee halbwegs mithalten. Der Artikel "Citation Geography: It's About Location" von Michael Batty erschien im Magazin "The Scientist" (Band 17, Heft 16/10, Ausgabe vom 25.8.03; http://www.thescientist.com/yr2003/aug/opinion 030825.html). Die Zeitschrift ist nach individueller Registrierung frei zugänglich. Der Homepage des Autors http: //www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/citations/ können weitere Details entnommen werden. Ob die Anzahl derZitate auch etwas über die wissenschaftliche Qualität aussagt, ist genau so Gegenstand von Diskussionen, wie dies etwa bei den "Impact-Faktoren" von Journalen der Fall ist (vgl. "Kann wissenschaftliche Qualität gemessen werden?", http://science.orf.at/science/news/58648). Ganz wertfrei kann man die ISI-Daten jedenfalls dazu verwenden, um herauszufinden, in welchem Land, in welcher Stadt und in welcher Institution die meist zitierten Forscher dieses Erdballs sitzen. Das Ergebnis dieser von Michael Batty erstellten "Geografie derwissenschaftlichen Zitierung" ist eindeutig: Einige Wenige ziehen den Großteil der publizistischen Aufmerksamkeit auf sich - und lassen für den Rest nur wenig über. Diese Aussage gilt gleichermaßen für Ranglisten von Städten, Institutionen und Ländern. Und: In allen drei Fällen kommen die Spitzereiter aus dem US-amerikanischen Raum.

0.02030597 = product of:
  0.04061194 = sum of:
    0.04061194 = product of:
      0.08122388 = sum of:
        0.08122388 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08122388 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, 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=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.02030597 = product of:
  0.04061194 = sum of:
    0.04061194 = product of:
      0.08122388 = sum of:
        0.08122388 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08122388 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

0.014358492 = product of:
  0.028716983 = sum of:
    0.028716983 = product of:
      0.057433967 = sum of:
        0.057433967 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057433967 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:20:22