Search (111 results, page 1 of 6)

0.081310354 = product of:
  0.16262071 = sum of:
    0.16262071 = sum of:
      0.12894781 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12894781 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049706765 = queryNorm
          0.37856176 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
      0.033672903 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033672903 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049706765 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose In The Invisible Substrate of Information Science, a landmark article about the discipline of information science, Marcia J. Bates wrote that ".we are always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people's lives" (1999a, p. 1048). To sharpen our understanding of information science and to elaborate Bates' idea, the work at hand answers the question: Just what does the red thread of information entail? Design/methodology/approach Through a close reading of Bates' oeuvre and by applying concepts from the reference literature of information science, nine composite entities that qualify as the red thread of information are identified, elaborated, and related to existing concepts in the information science literature. In the spirit of a scientist-poet (White, 1999), several playful metaphors related to the color red are employed. Findings Bates' red thread of information entails: terms, genres, literatures, classification systems, scholarly communication, information retrieval, information experience, information institutions, and information policy. This same constellation of phenomena can be found in resonant visions of information science, namely, domain analysis (Hjørland, 2002), ethnography of infrastructure (Star, 1999), and social epistemology (Shera, 1968). Research limitations/implications With the vital vermilion filament in clear view, newcomers can more easily engage the material, conceptual, and social machinery of information science, and specialists are reminded of what constitutes information science as a whole. Future researchers and scientist-poets may wish to supplement the nine composite entities with additional, emergent information phenomena. Originality/value Though the explication of information science that follows is relatively orthodox and time-bound, the paper offers an imaginative, accessible, yet technically precise way of understanding the field.

Date

30. 4.2020 21:03:22

0.055836048 = product of:
  0.111672096 = sum of:
    0.111672096 = product of:
      0.22334419 = sum of:
        0.22334419 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22334419 = score(doc=170,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.6556883 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A review of a range of epistemic concepts that are commonly researched was conducted with reference to conventional epistemology and with reference to foundational approaches to justification. These were assessed in relation to previous research undertaken linking information behavior and experience with paradigm, metatheory, and discourse. This research assesses how the epistemic concept is treated, both within information science and within disciplines that have affinities to the topics or agents that have been the subject of inquiry within the field. An attempt is made to clarify the types of connections that are associated with the epistemic concept and to provide a clearer view of how research focused on information behavior might consider the questions underpinning assumptions relating to knowledge and knowing. The symbiotic connection between epistemics and information science is advanced as a suitably nuanced conception of socially organized knowledge from which to define the appropriate level at which knowledge claims can be usefully advanced. It is proposed that fostering a better understanding of epistemics as a research practice might also provide for the development of a range of insights and methods that reflect the dynamic context within which the study of information behavior and information experience is located.

0.05470793 = product of:
  0.10941586 = sum of:
    0.10941586 = product of:
      0.21883172 = sum of:
        0.21883172 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 5984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21883172 = score(doc=5984,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.6424407 = fieldWeight in 5984, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of Dark Knowledge, an epistemology that acknowledges both alternative knowledge and ways of knowing which are cognizant of the moral and ethical positioning of each. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper that uses existing relevant literature to develop the work. The paper uses a four-stage literature search process and draws upon a range of disciplines, including philosophy, computer science and information management, to underpin the evolution of the concept. Findings As a conceptual paper, no empirical findings are presented. Instead, the paper presents an embryonic model of Dark Knowledge and identifies a number of characteristics, which may be used to explore the concept in more detail. Research limitations/implications There is a clear need to develop a body of empirical work, adding to the theoretical perspectives presented in this paper. It is anticipated that this paper will provide one of the cornerstones for future studies in this area. Originality/value The paper makes an original contribution to the study of information behaviours, practices and epistemology.

0.039473757 = product of:
  0.078947514 = sum of:
    0.078947514 = product of:
      0.23684254 = sum of:
        0.23684254 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23684254 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4214145 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.0328948 = product of:
  0.0657896 = sum of:
    0.0657896 = product of:
      0.1973688 = sum of:
        0.1973688 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1973688 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4214145 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.0328948 = product of:
  0.0657896 = sum of:
    0.0657896 = product of:
      0.1973688 = sum of:
        0.1973688 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1973688 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4214145 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.032236952 = product of:
  0.064473905 = sum of:
    0.064473905 = product of:
      0.12894781 = sum of:
        0.12894781 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12894781 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.37856176 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).

0.032236952 = product of:
  0.064473905 = sum of:
    0.064473905 = product of:
      0.12894781 = sum of:
        0.12894781 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12894781 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.37856176 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Virtue epistemology offers a yet-untapped path for ethical development in information science. This paper presents two empirical studies on intellectual humility (IH), a cornerstone intellectual virtue. Centrally, IH is a matter of being open to the possibility that one may be misinformed or uninformed; it involves accurately valuing one's beliefs according to the evidence. The studies presented in this paper explore the relationship between IH and people's information seeking and use. First, a correlational questionnaire study was conducted with 201 participants considering a recent, real-life task; second, a concurrent thinkaloud study was conducted with 8 participants completing 3 online search tasks. These studies give further color to prior assertions that people with higher IH engage in more information seeking. The results show, for instance, that those with higher IH may actually favor more easily accessible information sources and that some dimensions of IH, such as modesty and engagement, may be most important to information seeking. These findings offer a nuanced understanding of the relationship between IH and information behavior and practices. They suggest avenues for further research, and they may be applied in educational contexts and sociotechnical design.

0.032236952 = product of:
  0.064473905 = sum of:
    0.064473905 = product of:
      0.12894781 = sum of:
        0.12894781 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12894781 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.37856176 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How the knowledge base of disciplines grows, renews, and decays informs their distinct characteristics and epistemology. Here we track the evolution of knowledge bases of 19 disciplines for over 45 years. We introduce the notation of knowledge inheritance as the overlap in the set of references between years. We discuss two modes of knowledge inheritance of disciplines-successive and distant. To quantify the status and propensity of knowledge inheritance for disciplines, we propose two indicators: one descriptively describes knowledge base evolution, and one estimates the propensity of knowledge inheritance. When observing the continuity in knowledge bases for disciplines, we show distinct patterns for STEM and SS&H disciplines: the former inherits knowledge bases more successively, yet the latter inherits significantly from distant knowledge bases. We further discover stagnation or revival in knowledge base evolution where older knowledge base ceases to decay after 10 years (e.g., Physics and Mathematics) and are increasingly reused (e.g., Philosophy). Regarding the propensity of inheriting prior knowledge bases, we observe unanimous rises in both successive and distant knowledge inheritance. We show that knowledge inheritance could reveal disciplinary characteristics regarding the trajectory of knowledge base evolution and interesting insights into the metabolism and maturity of scholarly communication.

0.032236952 = product of:
  0.064473905 = sum of:
    0.064473905 = product of:
      0.12894781 = sum of:
        0.12894781 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12894781 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.37856176 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025789563 = product of:
  0.051579125 = sum of:
    0.051579125 = product of:
      0.10315825 = sum of:
        0.10315825 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10315825 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.3028494 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Science maps are visual representations of the structure and dynamics of scholarly knowl­edge. They aim to show how fields, disciplines, journals, scientists, publications, and scientific terms relate to each other. Science mapping is the body of methods and techniques that have been developed for generating science maps. This entry is an introduction to science maps and science mapping. It focuses on the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues of science mapping, rather than on the mathematical formulation of science mapping techniques. After a brief history of science mapping, we describe the general procedure for building a science map, presenting the data sources and the methods to select, clean, and pre-process the data. Next, we examine in detail how the most common types of science maps, namely the citation-based and the term-based, are generated. Both are based on networks: the former on the network of publications connected by citations, the latter on the network of terms co-occurring in publications. We review the rationale behind these mapping approaches, as well as the techniques and methods to build the maps (from the extraction of the network to the visualization and enrichment of the map). We also present less-common types of science maps, including co-authorship networks, interlocking editorship networks, maps based on patents' data, and geographic maps of science. Moreover, we consider how time can be represented in science maps to investigate the dynamics of science. We also discuss some epistemological and sociological topics that can help in the interpretation, contextualization, and assessment of science maps. Then, we present some possible applications of science maps in science policy. In the conclusion, we point out why science mapping may be interesting for all the branches of meta-science, from knowl­edge organization to epistemology.

0.025789563 = product of:
  0.051579125 = sum of:
    0.051579125 = product of:
      0.10315825 = sum of:
        0.10315825 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10315825 = score(doc=1105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.3028494 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to delineate the process of evolution of know­ledge organization systems (KOSs) through identification of principles of unity such as internal and external unity in organizing the structure of KOSs to achieve content storage and retrieval purposes and to explain a novel method used in ranking of KOSs by proposing the principle of rank unity. Different types of KOSs which are addressed in this article include dictionaries, Roget's thesaurus, thesauri, micro, macro, and meta-thesaurus, ontologies, and lower, middle, and upper-level ontologies. This article relied on dialectic models to clarify the ideas in Kant's know­ledge theory. This is done by identifying logical relationships between categories (i.e., Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) in the creation of data, information, and know­ledge in the human mind. The Analysis has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a documentary method, as its reasoning process to propose a conceptual model for ranking KOSs. The study endeavors to explain the main elements of data, information, and know­ledge along with engineering mechanisms such as data, information, and know­ledge engineering in developing the structure of KOSs and also aims to clarify their influence on content storage and retrieval performance. KOSs have followed related principles of order to achieve an internal order, which could be examined by analyzing the principle of internal unity in know­ledge organizations. The principle of external unity leads us to the necessity of compatibility and interoperability between different types of KOSs to achieve semantic harmonization in increasing the performance of content storage and retrieval. Upon introduction of the principle of rank unity, a ranking method of KOSs utilizing cognition states as criteria could be considered to determine the position of each know­ledge organization with respect to others. The related criteria of the principle of rank unity- cognition states- are derived from Immanuel Kant's epistemology. The research results showed that KOSs, while having defined positions in cognition states, specific principles of order, related operational mechanisms, and related principles of unity in achieving their specific purposes, have benefited from the developmental experiences of previous KOSs, and further, their developmental processes owe to the experiences and methods of their previous generations.

0.023571031 = product of:
  0.047142062 = sum of:
    0.047142062 = product of:
      0.094284125 = sum of:
        0.094284125 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094284125 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, 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=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.020203741 = product of:
  0.040407483 = sum of:
    0.040407483 = product of:
      0.080814965 = sum of:
        0.080814965 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080814965 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 3.2020 14:08:22

0.020203741 = product of:
  0.040407483 = sum of:
    0.040407483 = product of:
      0.080814965 = sum of:
        0.080814965 = weight(_text_:22 in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080814965 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.016836451 = product of:
  0.033672903 = sum of:
    0.033672903 = product of:
      0.067345805 = sum of:
        0.067345805 = weight(_text_:22 in 5723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067345805 = score(doc=5723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 1.2020 22:15:11

0.016836451 = product of:
  0.033672903 = sum of:
    0.033672903 = product of:
      0.067345805 = sum of:
        0.067345805 = weight(_text_:22 in 5846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067345805 = score(doc=5846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:40

0.016836451 = product of:
  0.033672903 = sum of:
    0.033672903 = product of:
      0.067345805 = sum of:
        0.067345805 = weight(_text_:22 in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067345805 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:28

0.016836451 = product of:
  0.033672903 = sum of:
    0.033672903 = product of:
      0.067345805 = sum of:
        0.067345805 = weight(_text_:22 in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067345805 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2020 19:11:24

0.016836451 = product of:
  0.033672903 = sum of:
    0.033672903 = product of:
      0.067345805 = sum of:
        0.067345805 = weight(_text_:22 in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067345805 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2020 19:16:24