Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

0.10981407 = product of:
  0.21962814 = sum of:
    0.20109524 = weight(_text_:headings in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20109524 = score(doc=1333,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.9093645 = fieldWeight in 1333, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1333)
    0.018532898 = product of:
      0.037065797 = sum of:
        0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037065797 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

n this article, we report on the first large-scale study of end-user understanding of subject headings. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which children and adults understood subdivided subject headings and to suggest improvements for improving understanding of subject headings. The 1991 Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging, which served as the impetus for the study. We demonstrated that adults understood subject headings better than children; however, both adults and children assigned correct meanings to less than half of the subject headings they examined. Neither subject heading context nor subdivision order had an effect on understanding. Based on our findings, we challenge the library community to make major changes to the Library of Congress Subject Headings system that have the potential to increase end-user understanding of subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.09636814 = product of:
  0.19273628 = sum of:
    0.14366938 = weight(_text_:headings in 1176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14366938 = score(doc=1176,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.6496814 = fieldWeight in 1176, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1176)
    0.049066905 = product of:
      0.09813381 = sum of:
        0.09813381 = weight(_text_:terminology in 1176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09813381 = score(doc=1176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.40798795 = fieldWeight in 1176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Digital repository migrations present a periodic opportunity to assess metadata quality and to perform strategic enhancements. Lafayette College Libraries implemented OCLC FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) for its digital image collections as part of a migration from multiple repositories to a single one built on the Samvera Hyrax open-source framework. Application of FAST has normalized subject headings across dissimilar collections in a way that tremendously improves descriptive consistency for staff and discoverability for end users. However, the process of applying FAST headings was complicated by several features of in-scope metadata as well as gaps in available controlled subject authorities.

0.05027381 = product of:
  0.20109524 = sum of:
    0.20109524 = weight(_text_:headings in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20109524 = score(doc=1163,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.9093645 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes a study to investigate end user understanding of subdivided subject headings in their current form and in the form proposed by the first recommendation of the Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference. The impetus for this study was a charge by the Subject Analysis Committee of the ALA to respond to the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference that proposed standardizing the order of subject subdivisions. Questionnaires bearing subdivided subject headings in the 'current' form and in the form proposed were distributed to users and professional cataloguers who were asked for the meaning of individual headings. The end users' responses to cataloguers' responses were compared to determine end users' level of understanding of subdivided subject headings. An analysis of end user interpretations demonstrated that they interpreted the meaning of subject headings in the same manner as cataloguers about 40% of the time for 'current' forms of subject headings and about 32% of the time for 'proposed' forms of subject headings. Concludes with specific recommendations about the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference and general recommendations about increasing end user understanding of subdivided subject headinbgs

0.0448154 = product of:
  0.0896308 = sum of:
    0.0710979 = weight(_text_:headings in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0710979 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
    0.018532898 = product of:
      0.037065797 = sum of:
        0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037065797 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, 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=197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Four focus groups were held with young Web users (10 to 13 years of age) to explore design criteria for Web portals. The focus group participants commented upon four existing portals designed with young users in mind: Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick, Lycos Zone, and Yahooligans! This article reports their first impressions on using these portals, their likes and dislikes, and their suggestions for improvements. Design criteria for children's Web portals are elaborated based upon these comments under four headings: portal goals, visual design, information architecture, and personalization. An ideal portal should cater for both educational and entertainment needs, use attractive screen designs based especially on effective use of color, graphics, and animation, provide both keyword search facilities and browsable subject categories, and allow individual user personalization in areas such as color and graphics

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

0.03554895 = product of:
  0.1421958 = sum of:
    0.1421958 = weight(_text_:headings in 6072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1421958 = score(doc=6072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.6430178 = fieldWeight in 6072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6072)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.03554895 = product of:
  0.1421958 = sum of:
    0.1421958 = weight(_text_:headings in 6178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1421958 = score(doc=6178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.6430178 = fieldWeight in 6178, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6178)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.03554895 = product of:
  0.1421958 = sum of:
    0.1421958 = weight(_text_:headings in 6794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1421958 = score(doc=6794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.6430178 = fieldWeight in 6794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6794)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0236993 = product of:
  0.0947972 = sum of:
    0.0947972 = weight(_text_:headings in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0947972 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.42867854 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A survey of catalogue use in 1993 at Utrecht University in the Netherlands showed considerable dissatisfaction with the online catalogue's subject search facilities. Of those who used subject searching 64% preferred subject headings against only 2% who chose classification schedules. Library users make little use of the existing facilities for assistance and leaflets which are available in the library. It has, therefore, been decided to provide a programme of instruction in library use and to move towards a unified system of subject access to the library's catalogue

0.020736888 = product of:
  0.08294755 = sum of:
    0.08294755 = weight(_text_:headings in 739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08294755 = score(doc=739,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 739, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=739)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Results of previous catalog research indicate that users want improvements in subject searching features, noting display of terms related to their topics as especially desirable. This study reports the findings of an examination of subject searchers' use of such a feature provided through online display of authority information from Library of Congress Subject Headings for terms used in the catalog. It was found that, of the terms entered by users, 78 percent were an exact or close match to catalog terms, and another 14 percent matched "see" references. Although additional information was available for nearly half of the searches performed, it was used in only 28 percent of these cases. It is suggested that improvements in subject searching features are needed to encourage use of available syndetic structures

0.020736888 = product of:
  0.08294755 = sum of:
    0.08294755 = weight(_text_:headings in 5258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08294755 = score(doc=5258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 5258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5258)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

OLIVE, a transaction logging facility enhanced with online questionnaires, was used to collect data from users of public and academic library catalogues. The comparative analysis of subject searching behaviour focused on the role of browsing subject headings and brief references in search formulation. Opportunities for browsing are greatly constrained by indexing practices. It is suggested that a more integrated approach to pre-coordinate and post-coordinate searching would be more effective. The logging software has been developed for a number of commercial online catalogues including Geac, CLSI and LIBERTAS. The use of a diagnostic and monitoring tool in the evaluation of OPACs is advocated

0.020736888 = product of:
  0.08294755 = sum of:
    0.08294755 = weight(_text_:headings in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08294755 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study of subject access to UK academic library catalogues was based on a questionnaires end out during Summer 1991. 86 out of a possible 110 questionnaires were returned. All universities and polytechniques now have OPACs which are progressing well towards comprehensive bibliographical coverage of their libraries' stocks. The MARC format is now widely used. Subject access strategies are usually based on either Library of Congress Subject Headings or inhouse indexing systems but almost half the OPACs studies have no separate subject searching option based on subject indexing is expensive and future subject indexing strategies are best based on pre-existing controlled vocabularies. Strategies authority control is essential. A limited range of software strategies is recommended including the need to limit search results

0.020736888 = product of:
  0.08294755 = sum of:
    0.08294755 = weight(_text_:headings in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08294755 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Current online catalogs have problems providing reasonable subject access, often resulting in searches with too few or too many hits. These problems can be improved by enhancing MARC records, building semantic networks through cross-references, and linking subject headings to classification numbers. This paper describes a pilot project to design a hypertext search engine using these principles

0.020736888 = product of:
  0.08294755 = sum of:
    0.08294755 = weight(_text_:headings in 2974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08294755 = score(doc=2974,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 2974, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2974)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study examines end-user interactions with indexing language information during subject searching in a library catalog and their understanding of this information and its function in term selection. Participants were asked to interact with the indexing language (Library of Congress Subject Headings) and were asked to express their general understanding of the information provided and each specific type of information included in the indexing language. In addition, participants were asked to express their understanding of the function of indexing language information in term selection, its usefulness and desirability as an integrated tool into the information retrieval system during subject searching. Study findings and their implications are discussed and future research is considered.

0.017774476 = product of:
  0.0710979 = sum of:
    0.0710979 = weight(_text_:headings in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0710979 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The research described in this article extends work done on human behavior in naming concepts and objects by adapting a methodology developed at Bell Labs and applying it to a library indexing language, the Library of Congress Subject Headings. The study investigated the representation of users' knowledge (names of objects and concepts), database representation for similar objects and concepts, and degree of agreement among users and between users and information systems. Three user groups give names to 40 stumuli. Names generated were compared with each other and with LCSH. Degree of agreement was calculated using similarity measures. The analyses identified patterns of agreement and variability in naming. There was little agreement in the names people use and the names recommended for use by LC, implying that retrieval systems should do more to accomodate common naming behavior

0.017774476 = product of:
  0.0710979 = sum of:
    0.0710979 = weight(_text_:headings in 473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0710979 = score(doc=473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=473)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this study descriptions of a novel by 100 users at 2 Swedish public libraries, Malmö and Molndal, Mar-Apr 95, were compared to the index terms used for the novels at these libraries. Describes previous systems for fiction indexing, the 2 libraries, and the users interviewed. Compares the AMP system with their own model. The latter operates with terms under the headings phenomena, frame and author's intention. The similarities between the users' and indexers' descriptions were sufficiently close to make it possible to retrieve fiction in accordance with users' wishes in Molndal, and would have been in Malmö, had more books been indexed with more terms. Sometimes the similarities were close enough for users to retrieve fiction on their own

0.014812064 = product of:
  0.059248257 = sum of:
    0.059248257 = weight(_text_:headings in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059248257 = score(doc=617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study adopts a naturalistic approach to investigate users' interaction with a browsable MeSH (medical subject headings) display designed to facilitate query construction for the PubMed bibliographic database. The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to test the usefulness of a browsable interface utilizing the principle of faceted classification; and second, to investigate users' preferred query submission methods in different problematic situations. An interface that incorporated multiple query submission methods - the conventional single-line query box as well as methods associated the faceted classification display was constructed. Participants' interactions with the interface were monitored remotely over a period of 10 weeks; information about their problematic situations and information retrieval behaviors were also collected during this time. The traditional controlled experiment was not adequate in answering the author's research questions; hence, the author provides his rationale for a naturalistic approach. The study's findings show that there is indeed a selective compatibility between query submission methods provided by the MeSH display and users' problematic situations. The query submission methods associated with the display were found to be the preferred search tools when users' information needs were vague and the search topics unfamiliar. The findings support the theoretical proposition that users engaging in an information retrieval process with a variety of problematic situations need different approaches. The author argues that rather than treat the information retrieval system as a general purpose tool, more attention should be given to the interaction between the functionality of the tool and the characteristics of users' problematic situations.

0.012391265 = product of:
  0.04956506 = sum of:
    0.04956506 = product of:
      0.09913012 = sum of:
        0.09913012 = weight(_text_:terminology in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09913012 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.41213006 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.

0.012266726 = product of:
  0.049066905 = sum of:
    0.049066905 = product of:
      0.09813381 = sum of:
        0.09813381 = weight(_text_:terminology in 3289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09813381 = score(doc=3289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.40798795 = fieldWeight in 3289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As more sophisticated searching capabilities become available on OPACs, librarians must wonder whether providing them is worthwhile. In order to determine whether users and nonusers of capabilities such as keyword and Boolean searching actually know how to use them properly, a survey was conducted of users of the NOTIS in Indiana State University Library. Results show a low degree of knowledge about keyword searching and points to the need for a built-in, easily used capability that does not require users to learn all the difficult precepts to be paid to automated aids to determining correct terminology for searching

0.012266726 = product of:
  0.049066905 = sum of:
    0.049066905 = product of:
      0.09813381 = sum of:
        0.09813381 = weight(_text_:terminology in 6737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09813381 = score(doc=6737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.40798795 = fieldWeight in 6737, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on a study, conducted at Maryland Univ., of end users of MEDLINE using PaperChase, a user friendly, menu driven software package, designed to be used with little or no training. Transaction logs. Transaction logs were examined to identify the types and frequency of apparent searching errors made by end users. The study is an extension of a previous study conducted at Michigan Univ. Results indicate that, despite the PaperChase system prompts that attempt to guide users to proper terminology, potentially costly errors are being made. Of particular concern are the misuses and failure to use the controlled vocabulary. Results suggest that a measure of end user training may be advisable

0.010810858 = product of:
  0.04324343 = sum of:
    0.04324343 = product of:
      0.08648686 = sum of:
        0.08648686 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08648686 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, 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=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11