Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

0.13212755 = product of:
  0.19819131 = sum of:
    0.13267101 = weight(_text_:electronic in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13267101 = score(doc=624,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.67609835 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
    0.0655203 = product of:
      0.1310406 = sum of:
        0.1310406 = weight(_text_:publishing in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1310406 = score(doc=624,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.5343672 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In the field of electronic publishing, encyclopedias represent a unique sort of text for investigating advanced methods of navigation. The user of an electronic excyclopedia normally expects special methods for accessing the entries in an encyclopedia database. Navigation through printed encyclopedias in the traditional sense focuses on the alphabetic order of the entries. In electronic encyclopedias, however, thematic structuring of lemmas and, of course, extensive (hyper-) linking mechanisms have been added. This paper will focus on showing developments, which go beyond these navigational strucutres. We will concentrate on the semantic space formed by lemmas to build a network of semantic distances and thematic trails through the encyclopedia

Source

Electronic publishing '99: redefining the information chain

0.06679192 = product of:
  0.20037577 = sum of:
    0.20037577 = sum of:
      0.132371 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.132371 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.53979236 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
      0.06800478 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06800478 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

Imprint

Basel : Springer International Publishing

0.06679192 = product of:
  0.20037577 = sum of:
    0.20037577 = sum of:
      0.132371 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.132371 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.53979236 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
      0.06800478 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06800478 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

Imprint

Basel : Springer International Publishing

0.0264742 = product of:
  0.0794226 = sum of:
    0.0794226 = product of:
      0.1588452 = sum of:
        0.1588452 = weight(_text_:publishing in 6171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1588452 = score(doc=6171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.64775085 = fieldWeight in 6171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Learned publishing. 13(2000) no.3, S.119-123

0.02260277 = product of:
  0.06780831 = sum of:
    0.06780831 = weight(_text_:electronic in 7729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06780831 = score(doc=7729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.34555468 = fieldWeight in 7729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7729)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Challenges in indexing electronic text and images. Ed.: R. Fidel et al

0.022061832 = product of:
  0.0661855 = sum of:
    0.0661855 = product of:
      0.132371 = sum of:
        0.132371 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.132371 = score(doc=3802,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.53979236 = fieldWeight in 3802, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3802)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Imprint

Bingley, UK : Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0.019777425 = product of:
  0.059332274 = sum of:
    0.059332274 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059332274 = score(doc=3132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30236036 = fieldWeight in 3132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3132)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Electronic Libraries and Information Highways MITRE Sponsored Research project aims to help searchers working in digital libraries increase their chance of matching the language of authors. Focuses on whether query formulation can be improved through the addition of semantic knowledge that is interactively gathered from a thesaurus that exists in a distributed, interoperating, cooperative environment. A prototype, ELVIS, was built that improves information retrieval through query expansion and is based on publicly available Z39.50 standard thesauri integrated with networked information discovery and retrieval tools

0.017649466 = product of:
  0.052948397 = sum of:
    0.052948397 = product of:
      0.10589679 = sum of:
        0.10589679 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10589679 = score(doc=2221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.4318339 = fieldWeight in 2221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the last few years, Twitter has become a powerful tool for publishing and discussing information. Yet, content exploration in Twitter requires substantial efforts and users often have to scan information streams by hand. In this paper, we approach this problem by means of faceted search. We propose strategies for inferring facets and facet values on Twitter by enriching the semantics of individual Twitter messages and present di erent methods, including personalized and context-adaptive methods, for making faceted search on Twitter more effective.

0.01602888 = product of:
  0.048086636 = sum of:
    0.048086636 = product of:
      0.09617327 = sum of:
        0.09617327 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09617327 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:17:40

0.01586778 = product of:
  0.047603343 = sum of:
    0.047603343 = product of:
      0.095206685 = sum of:
        0.095206685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095206685 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, 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=2134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:32:22

0.014126732 = product of:
  0.042380195 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=2579,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 2579, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2579)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to see how relevance feedback could be used to build and adjust profiles to improve the performance of filtering systems. Data was collected during the system interaction of 18 graduate students with SIFTER (Smart Information Filtering Technology for Electronic Resources), a filtering system that ranks incoming information based on users' profiles. The data set came from a collection of 6000 records concerning consumer health. In the first phase of the study, three different modes of profile acquisition were compared. The explicit mode allowed users to directly specify the profile; the implicit mode utilized relevance feedback to create and refine the profile; and the combined mode allowed users to initialize the profile and to continuously refine it using relevance feedback. Filtering performance, measured in terms of Normalized Precision, showed that the three approaches were significantly different ( [small alpha, Greek] =0.05 and p =0.012). The explicit mode of profile acquisition consistently produced superior results. Exclusive reliance on relevance feedback in the implicit mode resulted in inferior performance. The low performance obtained by the implicit acquisition mode motivated the second phase of the study, which aimed to clarify the role of context in relevance feedback judgments. An inductive content analysis of thinking aloud protocols showed dimensions that were highly situational, establishing the importance context plays in feedback relevance assessments. Results suggest the need for better representation of documents, profiles, and relevance feedback mechanisms that incorporate dimensions identified in this research.

0.014126732 = product of:
  0.042380195 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=4575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 4575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4575)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Web provides a massive knowledge source, as do intranets and other electronic document collections. However, much of that knowledge is encoded implicitly and cannot be applied directly without processing into some more appropriate structures. Searching, browsing, question answering, for example, could all benefit from domain-specific knowledge contained in the documents, and in applications such as simple search we do not actually need very "deep" knowledge structures such as ontologies, but we can get a long way with a model of the domain that consists of term hierarchies. We combine domain knowledge automatically acquired by exploiting the documents' markup structure with knowledge extracted an the fly to assist a user with ad hoc search requests. Such a search system can suggest query modification options derived from the actual data and thus guide a user through the space of documents. This article gives a detailed account of a task-based evaluation that compares a search system that uses the outlined domain knowledge with a standard search system. We found that users do use the query modification suggestions proposed by the system. The main conclusion we can draw from this evaluation, however, is that users prefer a system that can suggest query modifications over a standard search engine, which simply presents a ranked list of documents. Most interestingly, we observe this user preference despite the fact that the baseline system even performs slightly better under certain criteria.

0.014126732 = product of:
  0.042380195 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The growing availability of data in electronic form, the expansion of the World Wide Web and the accessibility of computational methods for large-scale data processing have allowed researchers in Information Retrieval (IR) to design systems which can effectively and efficiently constrain search within the boundaries given by context, thus transforming classical search into contextual search. Contextual Search: A Computational Framework introduces contextual search within a computational framework based on contextual variables, contextual factors and statistical models. It describes how statistical models can process contextual variables to infer the contextual factors underlying the current search context. It also provides background to the subject by: placing it among other surveys on relevance, interaction, context, and behaviour; providing a description of the contextual variables used for implementing the statistical models which represent and predict relevance and contextual factors; and providing an overview of the evaluation methodologies and findings relevant to this subject. Contextual Search: A Computational Framework is a highly recommended read, both for beginners who are embarking on research in this area and as a useful reference for established IR researchers.

0.013984751 = product of:
  0.041954253 = sum of:
    0.041954253 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041954253 = score(doc=1164,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21380106 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The explosive growth of the Internet and other sources of networked information have made automatic mediation of access to networked information sources an increasingly important problem. Much of this information is expressed as electronic text, and it is becoming practical to automatically convert some printed documents and recorded speech to electronic text as well. Thus, automated systems capable of detecting useful documents are finding widespread application. With even a small number of languages it can be inconvenient to issue the same query repeatedly in every language, so users who are able to read more than one language will likely prefer a multilingual text retrieval system over a collection of monolingual systems. And since reading ability in a language does not always imply fluent writing ability in that language, such users will likely find cross-language text retrieval particularly useful for languages in which they are less confident of their ability to express their information needs effectively. The use of such systems can be also be beneficial if the user is able to read only a single language. For example, when only a small portion of the document collection will ever be examined by the user, performing retrieval before translation can be significantly more economical than performing translation before retrieval. So when the application is sufficiently important to justify the time and effort required for translation, those costs can be minimized if an effective cross-language text retrieval system is available. Even when translation is not available, there are circumstances in which cross-language text retrieval could be useful to a monolingual user. For example, a researcher might find a paper published in an unfamiliar language useful if that paper contains references to works by the same author that are in the researcher's native language.

0.011334131 = product of:
  0.03400239 = sum of:
    0.03400239 = product of:
      0.06800478 = sum of:
        0.06800478 = weight(_text_:22 in 3279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06800478 = score(doc=3279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3279, 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=3279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.011334131 = product of:
  0.03400239 = sum of:
    0.03400239 = product of:
      0.06800478 = sum of:
        0.06800478 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06800478 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, 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=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.011220216 = product of:
  0.033660647 = sum of:
    0.033660647 = product of:
      0.06732129 = sum of:
        0.06732129 = weight(_text_:22 in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06732129 = score(doc=5295,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5295, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2006 17:56:22

0.011030916 = product of:
  0.03309275 = sum of:
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=3803,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Imprint

Bingley, UK : Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0.009888712 = product of:
  0.029666137 = sum of:
    0.029666137 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029666137 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.15118018 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Subject searching is the most common but also the most conflictive searching for end user. The aim of this paper is to check how users expressions match subject headings and to prove if knowledge structure used in online catalogs enhances searching effectiveness. A bibliographic revision about difficulties in subject access and proposed methods to improve it is also presented. For the empirical analysis, transaction logs from two university libraries, online catalogs (CISNE and FAMA) were collected. Results show that more than a quarter of user queries are effective due to an alphabetical subject index approach and browsing through hypertextual links. 1. Introduction Since the 1980's, online public access catalogs (OPAC's) have become usual way to access bibliographic information. During the last two decades the technological development has helped to extend their use, making feasible the access for a whole of users that is getting more and more extensive and heterogeneous, and also to incorporate information resources in electronic formats and to interconnect systems. However, technology seems to have developed faster than our knowledge about the tasks where it has been applied and than the evolution of our capacities for adapting to it. The conceptual model of OPAC has been hardly modified recently, and for interacting with them, users still need to combine the same skills and basic knowledge than at the beginning of its introduction (Borgman, 1986, 2000): a) conceptual knowledge to translate the information need into an appropriate query because of a well-designed mental model of the system, b) semantic and syntactic knowledge to be able to implement that query (access fields, searching type, Boolean logic, etc.) and c) basic technical skills in computing. At present many users have the essential technical skills to make use, with more or less expertise, of a computer. This number is substantially reduced when it is referred to the conceptual, semantic and syntactic knowledge that is necessary to achieve a moderately satisfactory search. An added difficulty arises in subject searching, as users should concrete their unknown information needs in terms that the information retrieval system can understand. Many researches have focused an unskilled searchers' difficulties to enter an effective query. The mental models influence, users assumption about characteristics, structure, contents and operation of the system they interact with have been analysed (Dillon, 2000; Dimitroff, 2000). Another issue that implies difficulties is vocabulary: how to find the right terms to implement a query and to modify it as the case may be. Terminology and expressions characteristics used in searching (Bates, 1993), the match between user terms and the subject headings from the catalog (Carlyle, 1989; Drabensttot, 1996; Drabensttot & Vizine-Goetz, 1994), the incidence of spelling errors (Drabensttot and Weller, 1996; Ferl and Millsap, 1996; Walker and Jones, 1987), users problems

0.0090673035 = product of:
  0.02720191 = sum of:
    0.02720191 = product of:
      0.05440382 = sum of:
        0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 5693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05440382 = score(doc=5693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5693, 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=5693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:35:22