Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Description: Its meaning, epistemology, and use with emphasis on information science (2023) 0.04 
    0.04459471 = product of:
  0.17837884 = sum of:
    0.17837884 = weight(_text_:description in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17837884 = score(doc=1193,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.77053154 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study examines the concept of "description" and its theoretical foundations. The literature about it is surprisingly limited, and its usage is vague, sometimes even conflicting. Description should be considered in relation to other processes, such as representation, data capturing, and categorizing, which raises the question about what it means to describe something. Description is often used for any type of predication but may better be limited to predications based on observations. Research aims to establish criteria for making optimal descriptions; however, the problems involved in describing something have seldom been addressed. Specific ideals are often followed without examine their fruitfulness. This study provides evidence that description cannot be a neutral, objective activity; rather, it is a theory-laden and interest-based activity. In information science, description occurs in processes such as document description, descriptive metadata assignment, and information resource description. In this field, description has equally been used in conflicting ways that mostly do not evince a recognition of the value- and theory-laden nature of descriptions. It is argued that descriptive activities in information science should always be based on consciously explicit considerations of the goals that descriptions are meant to serve.
  2. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Toward a new horizon in information science : domain analysis (1995) 0.04 
    0.037629798 = product of:
  0.075259596 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article is a programmatic article, which formulates a new approach to information science (IS): domain analysis. This approach states that the most fruitful horizon for IS is to study the knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities, which are parts of society's division of labor. The article is also a review article, providing a multidisciplinary description of research, illuminating this theoretical view. The first section presents contemporary research in IS, sharing the fundamental viewpoint that IS should be seen as a social rather than as a purely mental discipline. In addition, important predecessors to this view are mentioned and the possibilities as well as the limitations of their approaches are discussed. The second section describes recent transdisciplinary tendencies in the understanding of knowledge. In bordering disciplines to IS, such as educational research, psychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of science, an important new view of knowledge is appearing in the 1990s. This new view of knowledge stresses the social ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge. This is opposed to the more formal, computer-like approaches that dominated in the 1980s. The third section compares domain-analysis to other major approaches in IS, such as the cognitive approach. The final section outlines important problems to be investigates, such as how different knowledge-doamins affect the informational value of different subject access points in databases
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval and knowledge organization : a perspective from the philosophy of science 0.03 
    0.030063018 = product of:
  0.060126036 = sum of:
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.
    Source
    Information 12(2021) 26 S
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Arguments for 'the bibliographical paradigm' : some thoughts inspired by the new English edition of the UDC (2007) 0.02 
    0.017837884 = product of:
  0.071351536 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The term 'the bibliographic paradigm' is used in the literature of library and information science, but is a very seldom term and is almost always negatively described. This paper reconsiders this concept. Method. The method is mainly 'analytical'. Empirical data concerning the current state of the UDC-classification system are also presented in order to illuminate the connection between theory and practice. Analysis. The bibliographic paradigm is understood as a perspective in library and information science focusing on documents and information resources, their description, organization, mediation and use. This perspective is examined as one among other metatheories of library and information science and its philosophical assumptions and implications are outlined. Results. The neglect and misunderstanding of 'the bibliographic paradigm' as well as the quality of the new UDC-classification indicate that both the metatheoretical discourses on library and information science and its concrete practice seem to be in a state of crisis.
  5. Hjoerland, B.: What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? (2008) 0.02 
    0.017837884 = product of:
  0.071351536 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: "What is knowledge organization?" differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning. That is why library classification has been criticized for a lack of substantive intellectual content. Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding. This paper offers an understanding of KO based on an explicit theory of knowledge.
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Science, Part I : basic conceptions of science and the scientific method (2021) 0.01 
    0.014864903 = product of:
  0.05945961 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=594,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.
  7. Hjoerland, B.: Bibliographical control (2023) 0.01 
    0.014864903 = product of:
  0.05945961 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Terminology (2023) 0.01 
    0.012006768 = product of:
  0.048027072 = sum of:
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 1122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=1122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 1122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1122)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20.11.2023 16:41:26
  9. Hjoerland, B.; Kyllesbech Nielsen, L.: Subject access points in electronic retrieval (2001) 0.01 
    0.011059988 = product of:
  0.044239953 = sum of:
    0.044239953 = product of:
      0.08847991 = sum of:
        0.08847991 = weight(_text_:access in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08847991 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.5242754 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Concepts, paradigms and knowledge organization (2010) 0.01 
    0.010291515 = product of:
  0.04116606 = sum of:
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=3512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3512)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi
  11. Hjoerland, B.: Theories are knowledge organizing systems (KOS) (2015) 0.01 
    0.010291515 = product of:
  0.04116606 = sum of:
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    26. 6.2015 20:52:24
  12. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The paradox of atheoretical classification (2016) 0.01 
    0.010291515 = product of:
  0.04116606 = sum of:
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 3169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=3169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 3169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3169)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    23.10.2016 19:26:57
  13. Lardera, M.; Hjoerland, B.: Keyword (2021) 0.01 
    0.010291515 = product of:
  0.04116606 = sum of:
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    27. 5.2022 17:58:26
  14. Hjoerland, B.; Albrechtsen, H.: ¬An analysis of some trends in classification research (1999) 0.01 
    0.008576263 = product of:
  0.03430505 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=6391,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.3, S.131-139
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Deliberate bias in knowledge organization? (2008) 0.01 
    0.008576263 = product of:
  0.03430505 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 2510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=2510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 2510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2510)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    27.12.2008 11:16:26
  16. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The foundation of the concept of relevance (2010) 0.01 
    0.008576263 = product of:
  0.03430505 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=3326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    31. 5.2010 15:01:26
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval? (2016) 0.01 
    0.008576263 = product of:
  0.03430505 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    26. 4.2016 12:44:39
  18. Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics (1998) 0.01 
    0.0067033647 = product of:
  0.026813459 = sum of:
    0.026813459 = product of:
      0.053626917 = sum of:
        0.053626917 = weight(_text_:access in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053626917 = score(doc=649,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Information science (IS) is concerned with the searching and retrieval of text and other information (IR), mostly in electronic databases and on the Internet. Such databases contain fulltext (or other kinds of documents, e.g. pictures) and/or document representations and/or different kinds of 'value added information'. The core theoretical problems for IS is related to the determination of the usefulness of different 'subject access points' in electronic databases. This problem is again related to theories of meaning and semantics. This paper outlines some important principles in the design of documents done in the field of 'composition studies'. It maps the possible subject access points and presents research done on each kind of these. It shows how theorie of IR must build on or relate to different theories of concepts and meaning. It discusses 2 contrasting theories of semantics worked out by Ludwig Wittgenstein: 'the picture theory' and 'the theory od language games' and demonstrates the different consequences for such theories for IR. Finally, the implications for information professionals are discussed
  19. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01 
    0.0059028515 = product of:
  0.023611406 = sum of:
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
  20. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.01 
    0.0059028515 = product of:
  0.023611406 = sum of:
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Pages
    S.22-36

Authors

Years

Types

Themes