Search (56 results, page 2 of 3)

0.019369897 = product of:
  0.058109686 = sum of:
    0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058109686 = score(doc=1193,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article describes two approaches for searching heterogeneous resources, which are explained as they are used in two corresponding existing systems-RIRS (Resource Integration Retrieval System) and HRUSP (Heterogeneous Resource Union Search Platform). On analyzing the existing systems, a possible framework-the MUSP (Multimetadata-Based Union Search Platform) is presented. Libraries now face a dilemma. On one hand, libraries subscribe to many types of database retrieval systems that are produced by various providers. The libraries build their data and information systems independently. This results in highly heterogeneous and distributed systems at the technical level (e.g., different operating systems and user interfaces) and at the conceptual level (e.g., the same objects are named using different terms). On the other hand, end users want to access all these heterogeneous data via a union interface, without having to know the structure of each information system or the different retrieval methods used by the systems. Libraries must achieve a harmony between information providers and users. In order to bridge the gap between the service providers and the users, it would seem that all source databases would need to be rebuilt according to a uniform data structure and query language, but this seems impossible. Fortunately, however, libraries and information and technology providers are now making an effort to find a middle course that meets the requirements of both data providers and users. They are doing this through resource integration.

0.018978544 = product of:
  0.056935627 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=1163,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss a user study done at the formative stage of development of a Math Tools developers' community. The Math Tools digital library, which aims to collect software tools to support K-12 and university mathematics instruction, has two synergistic purposes. One is to support federated search and the other is to create a community of practice in which developers and users can work together. While much research has explored the technical problem of federated search, there has been little investigation into how to grow a creative, working community around a digital library. To this end, we surveyed and interviewed members of the Math Tools community in order to elicit concerns and priorities. These data led to rich descriptions of the teachers, developers, and researchers who comprise this community. Insights from these descriptions were then used to inform the creation of a set of metaphors and design principles that the Math Tools team could use in their continuing design work.

0.016054355 = product of:
  0.048163064 = sum of:
    0.048163064 = product of:
      0.09632613 = sum of:
        0.09632613 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632613 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, 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=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 6483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=6483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6483, 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=6483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:43:01

0.015815454 = product of:
  0.04744636 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 2559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=2559,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2559, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2559)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the ways in which Canadian digital library collections have incorporated knowledge organization systems into their search interfaces. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of data-gathering techniques was used. These were as follows: a review of the literature related to the application of knowledge organization systems, deep scanning of Canadian governmental and academic institutions web sites on the web, identify and contact researchers in the area of knowledge organization, and identify and contact people in the governmental organizations who are involved in knowledge organization and information management. Findings - A total of 33 digital collections were identified that have made use of some type of knowledge organization system. Thesauri, subject heading lists and classification schemes were the widely used knowledge organization systems in the surveyed Canadian digital library collections. Research limitations/implications - The target population for this research was limited to governmental and academic digital library collections. Practical implications - An evaluation of the knowledge organization systems interfaces showed that searching, browsing and navigation facilities as well as bilingual features call for improvements. Originality/value - This research contributes to the following areas: digital libraries, knowledge organization systems and services and search interface design.

0.015815454 = product of:
  0.04744636 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=2596,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To describe how information visualization can be used in the design of interface tools for large-scale repositories. Design/methodology/approach - One challenge for designers in the context of large-scale repositories is to create interface tools that help users find specific information of interest. In order to be most effective, these tools need to leverage the cognitive characteristics of the target users. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the authors' target users are scientists and engineers who can be characterized as higher-order, analytical thinkers. In this paper, the authors describe a visualization tool they have created for making the authors' large-scale digital object repositories more usable for them: SearchGraph, which facilitates data set analysis by displaying search results in the form of a two- or three-dimensional interactive scatter plot. Findings - Using SearchGraph, users can view a condensed, abstract visualization of search results. They can view the same dataset from multiple perspectives by manipulating several display, sort, and filter options. Doing so allows them to see different patterns in the dataset. For example, they can apply a logarithmic transformation in order to create more scatter in a dense cluster of data points or they can apply filters in order to focus on a specific subset of data points. Originality/value - SearchGraph is a creative solution to the problem of how to design interface tools for large-scale repositories. It is particularly appropriate for the authors' target users, who are scientists and engineers. It extends the work of the first two authors on ActiveGraph, a read-write digital library visualization tool.

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=696)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Nowadays, end-users have quick and direct access to massive amount of information available on the Net. However, this information is unorganized expecting users to be able to identify and evaluate it in accordance with their information needs. Subject based information Gateways SBIG, organized collections of networked information, provide users with a catalogue of authoritative Internet resources, which can be searched and/ or browsed. This paper provides an evaluation of one such gateway - the Art, Design, Architecture & Media Gateway ADAM. It provides information on who these users are, how often they use the service, what their reasons for use are, which search methods and services they prefer and what are the advantages and disadvantages of an online information service.

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=1165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on a decade's experience with the Alexandria Digital Library Project, seven issues are presented that arise in creating georeferenced digital libraries, and that appear to be intrinsic to the problem of creating any library-like information system that operates on georeferenced and geospatial resources. The first and foremost issue is providing discovery of georeferenced resources. Related to discovery are the issues of gazetteer integration and specialized ranking of search results. Strong data typing and scalability are implementation issues. Providing spatial context is a critical user interface issue. Finally, sophisticated resource access mechanisms are necessary to operate on geospatial resources.

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since the 1960s, librarians have projected a vision of a digital library that offers seamless access to a vast world of scholarly information of all types. Until the 1990s, however, digital technologies lacked the power and capacity to deliver on the vision. During the 1990s, technology platforms, networking technologies, electronic resources, and the evolution of standards matured sufficiently to lay the foundation for the vision to be fulfilled. As this maturation was taking place, the rapid growth of electronic resources was based on numerous proprietary systems making access across such systems impossible. The scholars portal project is an effort to create a search and retrieval tool that will provide an interim solution to this problem until such time as those systems are built on a unified set of standards and data formats.

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 30) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=30,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 30, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=30)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Librarians have long sought to select, evaluate, and organize information on the Internet. Efforts began with individual librarians sharing bookmark files of favorite sites and progressed to increasingly large, collaboratively produced general and subject/discipline-specific gateway Web sites or megasites. Megasites list major resources usually in a particular subject area or discipline. Library portals that review, evaluate, and sometimes rate and rank resources grew from some of these Web sites. Both megasites and portals serve as gateways to the Internet. Many portals have developed from relatively small static files into large, dynamically generated databases providing descriptive annotations of selected resources and are increasingly overseen as global projects with formal policies and procedures. Portals now provide increasingly complex and sophisticated browse and search capabilities with a multitude of access points, often including call numbers and subject headings. These are described and compared. Future trends such as increased collaboration among portals; automated location, selection, and cataloging of resources; integration of multiple resource types; and increased access to full-content and virtual library services are also discussed.

0.012652363 = product of:
  0.037957087 = sum of:
    0.037957087 = weight(_text_:search in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037957087 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.21722981 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.

0.011352143 = product of:
  0.03405643 = sum of:
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, 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=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.011183213 = product of:
  0.03354964 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 1261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=1261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 1261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1261)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We are rapidly constructing an extensive network infrastructure for moving information across national boundaries, but much remains to be done before linguistic barriers can be surmounted as effectively as geographic ones. Users seeking information from a digital library could benefit from the ability to query large collections once using a single language, even when more than one language is present in the collection. If the information they locate is not available in a language that they can read, some form of translation will be needed. At present, multilingual thesauri such as EUROVOC help to address this challenge by facilitating controlled vocabulary search using terms from several languages, and services such as INSPEC produce English abstracts for documents in other languages. On the other hand, support for free text searching across languages is not yet widely deployed, and fully automatic machine translation is presently neither sufficiently fast nor sufficiently accurate to adequately support interactive cross-language information seeking. An active and rapidly growing research community has coalesced around these and other related issues, applying techniques drawn from several fields - notably information retrieval and natural language processing - to provide access to large multilingual collections.

0.011183213 = product of:
  0.03354964 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 2395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=2395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 2395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2395)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Europeana is an international trusted digital initiative providing access, from a single entry point, to prized collections from a number of European cultural institutions. Advanced Internet and digital technologies present new ways to connect with users; and there is a need continued evaluation of digital libraries. This paper reports on a task oriented, usability study exploring a number of aspects including user satisfaction specific to the Europeana Digital Library. Participants were students from Library Science and Information Systems department, who had some basic experience searching digital collections for information. Participants performed 13 tasks, and focused on the Hellenistic collection. Methodologically, the test was consisted of a list of tasks that among others aimed to assess user satisfaction and interest while performing them. The method applied was measuring Effectiveness, Efficiency, Learnability and Satisfaction. Despite the fact that it was not the first time that they came in contact with a digital library, several participants had difficulties while performing selected tasks, especially when they involved a variety of search types. In general, all of the participants seemed to comprehend how Europeana is organized, although the results also indicate that participants had feelings that expectations were not met when performing more complex tasks.

0.011070817 = product of:
  0.03321245 = sum of:
    0.03321245 = weight(_text_:search in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03321245 = score(doc=3821,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19007608 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"1. The EU projeet Renardus Renardus is a project funded by the European Commission as part of the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme, part of the European Union's 5th Framework Programme. Partners in Renardus include national libraries, research centres and subject gateway services from Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, co-ordinated by the National Library of the Netherlands. The project aims to develop a Web-based service to enable searching and browsing across a range of distributed European-based information services designed for the academic and research communities - and in particular those services known as subject gateways. These gateways are services that provide access to Internet resources. They tend to be selective with regard to the resources they give access to, and are usually based an the manual creation of descriptive metadata. Services typically provide users with both search and browse facilities, and offen offer hierarchical browse structures based an subject classification schemes (Koch & Day, 1997). Predecessor projects like the EU project DESIRE have already developed solutions for the description of individual resources and for automatic classification at the level of an individual subject gateway using established classification systems. Renardus intends to develop a service that can cross-search and cross-browse a number of distributed subject gateways through the use of a common metadata profile and by the mapping all locally-used classification schemes to a common scheme. A thorough review of existing data models (Becker, et al., 2000) was used as the basis for the agreement of a minimum set of Dublin Core-based metadata elements that could be utilised as a common data model. A comprehensive mapping effort from the individual gateways' metadata element sets and content encoding schemes to the common profile has taken place. This provides the infrastructure for interoperability between all participating databases and thus is the necessary prerequisite for cross-searching."

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=4875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4875, 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=4875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:16

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, 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=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13