Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.06
    0.061548676 = product of:
      0.09232301 = sum of:
        0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07192158 = score(doc=3602,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
        0.020401431 = product of:
          0.040802862 = sum of:
            0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040802862 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Tschetschonig, K.; Ladengruber, R.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce (2008) 0.03
    0.034255505 = product of:
      0.102766514 = sum of:
        0.102766514 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102766514 = score(doc=2891,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.5237035 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Social-Tagging-Systeme bieten eine Vielzahl an Vorteilen gegenüber traditionellen und zurzeit eingesetzten Systemen und werden besonders in nicht-kommerziellen Web-2.0-Anwendungen erfolgreich verwendet. Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den Vor- und Nachteilen von Social Tagging für kollaborative Systeme des Electronic Commerce und stellt einige Beispiele aus der Praxis vor. Es gibt nur wenige Anwendungen aus dem Bereich des Electronic Commerce, die Social Tagging erfolgreich als kritischen Teil ihrer Systeme einsetzen. Deshalb wird das Potenzial von Tagging-Systemen beleuchtet, um eine fundierte Basis für neue Entwicklungen im Geschäftsbereich zu schaffen.
  3. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.02
    0.02397386 = product of:
      0.07192158 = sum of:
        0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07192158 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    LCSH
    Electronic reference services (Libraries)
    Subject
    Electronic reference services (Libraries)
  4. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.02
    0.019978218 = product of:
      0.05993465 = sum of:
        0.05993465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05993465 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.30543008 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.
  5. Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005) 0.01
    0.014126732 = product of:
      0.042380195 = sum of:
        0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042380195 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 1265, 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=1265)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
  6. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Flack, M.: Social bookmarking tools (II) : a case study - Connotea (2005) 0.01
    0.011030916 = product of:
      0.03309275 = sum of:
        0.03309275 = product of:
          0.0661855 = sum of:
            0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0661855 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.
  7. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01
    0.0090673035 = product of:
      0.02720191 = sum of:
        0.02720191 = product of:
          0.05440382 = sum of:
            0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05440382 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, 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=2882)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Pages
    S.15-22
  8. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01
    0.00801444 = product of:
      0.024043318 = sum of:
        0.024043318 = product of:
          0.048086636 = sum of:
            0.048086636 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048086636 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  9. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01
    0.00793389 = product of:
      0.023801671 = sum of:
        0.023801671 = product of:
          0.047603343 = sum of:
            0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047603343 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  10. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005) 0.01
    0.007721641 = product of:
      0.023164922 = sum of:
        0.023164922 = product of:
          0.046329845 = sum of:
            0.046329845 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.046329845 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.18892732 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    A number of such utilities are presented here, together with an emergent new class of tools that caters more to the academic communities and that stores not only user-supplied tags, but also structured citation metadata terms wherever it is possible to glean this information from service providers. This provision of rich, structured metadata means that the user is provided with an accurate third-party identification of a document, which could be used to retrieve that document, but is also free to search on user-supplied terms so that documents of interest (or rather, references to documents) can be made discoverable and aggregated with other similar descriptions either recorded by the user or by other users. Matt Biddulph in an XML.com article last year, in which he reviews one of the better known social bookmarking tools, del.icio.us, declares that the "del.icio.us-space has three major axes: users, tags, and URLs". We fully support that assessment but choose to present this deconstruction in a reverse order. This paper thus first recaps a brief history of bookmarks, then discusses the current interest in tagging, moves on to look at certain social issues, and finally considers some of the feature sets offered by the new bookmarking tools. A general review of a number of common social bookmarking tools is presented in the annex. A companion paper describes a case study in more detail: the tool that Nature Publishing Group has made available to the scientific community as an experimental entrée into this field - Connotea; our reasons for endeavouring to provide such a utility; and experiences gained and lessons learned.
  11. Good tags - bad tags : Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.01
    0.007063366 = product of:
      0.021190098 = sum of:
        0.021190098 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021190098 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.10798584 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Content
    - Theoretische Ansätze und empirische Untersuchungen Stefanie Panke & Birgit Gaiser: "With my head up in the clouds" - Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht Christoph Held& Ulrike Cress: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht Michael Derntl, Thorsten Hampel, Renate Motschnig & Tomas Pitner: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access - Einsatz von Tagging in Hochschulen und Bibliotheken Christian Hänger: Good tags or bad tags? Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung Mandy Schiefner: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre Michael Blank, Thomas Bopp, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? Andreas Harrer & Steffen Lohmann: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse Harald Sack & Jörg Waitelonis: Zeitbezogene kollaborative Annotation zur Verbesserung der inhaltsbasierten Videosuche - Kommerzielle Anwendungen von Tagging Karl Tschetschonig, Roland Ladengruber, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce Tilman Küchler, Jan M. Pawlowski & Volker Zimmermann: Social Tagging and Open Content: A Concept for the Future of E-Learning and Knowledge Management? Stephan Schillenvein: Der .Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen
  12. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01
    0.0068004774 = product of:
      0.020401431 = sum of:
        0.020401431 = product of:
          0.040802862 = sum of:
            0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040802862 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  13. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.01
    0.0068004774 = product of:
      0.020401431 = sum of:
        0.020401431 = product of:
          0.040802862 = sum of:
            0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040802862 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  14. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01
    0.0056670653 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  15. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.01
    0.0056670653 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  16. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.01
    0.0056670653 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  17. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.00
    0.0045336518 = product of:
      0.013600955 = sum of:
        0.013600955 = product of:
          0.02720191 = sum of:
            0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02720191 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  18. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.00
    0.0045336518 = product of:
      0.013600955 = sum of:
        0.013600955 = product of:
          0.02720191 = sum of:
            0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02720191 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  19. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.00
    0.0045336518 = product of:
      0.013600955 = sum of:
        0.013600955 = product of:
          0.02720191 = sum of:
            0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02720191 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45

Languages

  • e 15
  • d 4

Types