Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

0.033481717 = product of:
  0.08370429 = sum of:
    0.04830113 = weight(_text_:it in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04830113 = score(doc=33,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31955284 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 33, 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=33)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The concept of concept has seldom been examined in its entirety, and the term very seldom defined. The rigidity, or lack thereof, and the homogeneity, or lack thereof, of concepts, are only two of their characteristics that have been debated. These issues are reviewed in this paper, namely: 1) does a concept represent its referent(s), or is it a free creation of the mind?; 2) can a concept be analyzed in parts or elements?; 3) must a concept be general, i.e., refer to a category or a type, or can it refer to a single object, physical or mental?; 4) are concepts as clearly delimited as terms are? Are concepts voiceless terms?; and, 5) what do terms contribute to an individual's and a community's conceptual richness? As regards the relationship of concepts with their referents in the stage of formation, it seems reasonable to conclude that said relationship may be close in some concepts, less close in others, and lacking altogether in some cases. The set of elements of a concept, which varies from individual to individual and across time inside the same individual, is called the intension of a concept. The set of referents of a concept is called the extension of that concept. Most concepts don't have a clearly delimited extension: their referents form a fuzzy set. The aspects of a concept's intension form a scale of generality. A concept is not equal to the term that describes it; rather, many terms are joined to concepts. Language, therefore, renders a gamut of services to the development, consolidation, and communication of conceptual richness.

Date

22. 1.2012 13:11:25

0.030893266 = product of:
  0.077233166 = sum of:
    0.041830003 = weight(_text_:it in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041830003 = score(doc=5588,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27674085 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22

0.023821492 = product of:
  0.059553728 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, 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=1204)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A main goal of recent studies in semantics is to integrate into conceptual structures the models of representation used in linguistics, logic, and/or artificial intelligence. A fundamental problem resides in the need to structure knowledge and then to check the validity of constructed representations. We propose associating logical properties with relationships by introducing the relationships into a typed and functional system of specifcations. This makes it possible to compare conceptual representations against the relationships established between the concepts. The mandatory condition to validate such a conceptual representation is consistency. The semantic system proposed is based an a structured set of semantic primitives-types, relations, and properties-based an a global model of language processing, Applicative and Cognitive Grammar (ACG) (Desc16s, 1990), and an extension of this model to terminology (Jouis & Mustafa 1995, 1996, 1997). The ACG postulates three levels of representation of languages, including a cognitive level. At this level, the meanings of lexical predicates are represented by semantic cognitive schemes. From this perspective, we propose a set of semantic concepts, which defines an organized system of meanings. Relations are part of a specification network based an a general terminological scheure (i.e., a coherent system of meanings of relations). In such a system, a specific relation may be characterized as to its: (1) functional type (the semantic type of arguments of the relation); (2) algebraic properties (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.); and (3) combinatorial relations with other entities in the same context (for instance, the part of the text where a concept is defined).

Date

1.12.2002 11:12:22

0.019825771 = product of:
  0.09912886 = sum of:
    0.09912886 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09912886 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, 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=880)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.9-22

0.016993519 = product of:
  0.08496759 = sum of:
    0.08496759 = weight(_text_:22 in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08496759 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3904, 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=3904)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971) H.3, S.98-104 (T.1); H.4, S.143-150 (T.2)

0.011329013 = product of:
  0.05664506 = sum of:
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, 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=3726)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.009912886 = product of:
  0.04956443 = sum of:
    0.04956443 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04956443 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:17:40

0.009912886 = product of:
  0.04956443 = sum of:
    0.04956443 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04956443 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5710, 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=5710)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.22-33

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

After studying the relations between two words(nouns) that constitute a compound term, the relation between corresponding concepts discussed. The impossibility of having a conjunction between two concepts that have no common feature causes inconvenience in the application of concept theory to information retrieval problems. Another kind of conjunctions, different from that by co-occurrence, is proposed and characteristics of this conjunction is studied. It revealed that one of new ones has the same character with colon combination in UDC. The possibility of having three kinds of conjunction including Wsterian concept conjunction is presented. It is also discussed that subdivisions can be replaced by new conjunctions

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3060, 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=3060)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx

0.008366001 = product of:
  0.041830003 = sum of:
    0.041830003 = weight(_text_:it in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041830003 = score(doc=7868,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27674085 = fieldWeight in 7868, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7868)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Up to the present day, difficulties have confronted all attempts at establishing a theory of concepts that would comprise the various kinds of concept-formation in the disciplines of the spectrum of sciences. Not a few philosophical dictionaries, under the entry 'concept', still offer doctrinies which were current far back in the history of philosophy and have little in coomon with concept-formations in the sciences today. The paper aims at an improvement in this situation. After a sketch of the 'classical' notion of concept, already developed in antiquity (essentially a logic of 'classification', although 'class-formation' in tis present understanding had not yet been conceived), the canonical modern doctrine of concepts is outlined. With an eye to application in the exact sciences, it is shown how in the nineteenth century the view of concept as an additive complex of characteristics yields to a functional approach systematized, in the last quarter of the century, by classical quantificational logic. Almost simultaneously, Mach, Frege, Peano, Weyl and others set out to shape the modern theory of abstraction. It is these two theories that today permit philosophers of science not only to deal with functional processes of concept-formation but also to represent in a formally coorect manner metalinguistic propositions about concepts and their properties. Thus it seems that the fundamental tasks of a modern theory of concept have finally been taken care of

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=1617,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A concept is regarded as the common element of both classification systems and thesauri. Reality and knowledge are not represented by words or terms but by the meanings "behind" these tokens. A concept of, say, an object, a property of an object, a process, etc. is derived from verbal statements on these as subjects and may therefore be defined as the whole of true and possible predicates that can be collected on a given subject. It is from these predicates that the characteristics of the corresponding concepts can be derived. Common characteristics in different concepts lead to relationsbetween concepts, which relations in turn are factors for the formation of concept systems. Different kinds of relationships as well as different kinds of concepts are distinguished. It is pointed out that an orderly supply of the elements for propositions (informative statements) on new knowledge requires the construction and availability of such concept systems

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=1197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Automatic identification of semantic relations in text is a difficult problem, but is important for many applications. It has been used for relation matching in information retrieval to retrieve documents that contain not only the concepts but also the relations between concepts specified in the user's query. It is an integral part of information extraction-extracting from natural language text, facts or pieces of information related to a particular event or topic. Other potential applications are in the construction of relational thesauri (semantic networks of related concepts) and other kinds of knowledge bases, and in natural language processing applications such as machine translation and computer comprehension of text. This chapter examines the main methods used for identifying semantic relations automatically and their application in information retrieval and information extraction.

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=2178,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A set of semantic relations is created every time a domain modeler wants to solve some complex problem computationally. These relations are usually organized into ontologies. But three is little standardization of ontologies today, and almost no discussion an ways of comparing relations, of determining a general approach to creating relations, or of modeling in general. This chapter outlines an approach to establishing a general methodology for comparing and justifying sets of relations (and ontologies in general). It first provides several dozen characteristics of ontologies, organized into three taxonomies of increasingly detailed features, by which many essential characteristics of ontologies can be described. These features enable one to compare ontologies at a general level, without studying every concept they contain. But sometimes it is necessary to make detailed comparisons of content. The chapter then illustrates one method for determining salient points for comparison, using algorithms that semi-automatically identify similarities and differences between ontologies.

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=3512,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3512)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It is argued that concepts are the building blocks of knowledge organizing systems (KOS). Objections to this view are considered and answers are provided. By implication the theory of concepts constitutes the foundation for knowledge organization (KO). The theory of concepts is understood as related to and derived from theories of knowledge. Different theories of knowledge such as empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism imply different theories of concepts. Such different epistemologies and their associated theories of concepts represent different methodological ideals which probably compete in all knowledge domains. Different approaches to KO are also in fundamental ways associated with different theories of concepts. The paper holds that the historicist and pragmatic theory of concept should be considered most valuable. By implication is it is necessary to know about competing theories in the fields being organized. A further implication of the pragmatic view is that the construction of a KOS must be understood as a way of participating in the discourses in the domain that is being represented.

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 5637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=5637,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 5637, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5637)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Despite having the principle of provenance as its guiding element, the archival knowledge organization still prescinds, for conceptual purposes, of greater clarity of its object-the archival knowledge-a fundamental aspect for the sedimentation of the archival studies and of its discursive community in the scope of KO. This article aims to define a conceptual framework to archival knowledge by using Dahlberg's concept theory. In this vein, it established the nominal concept or definiendum-archival knowledge-seeking to analyze its real definition, composed by three inseparable definiens: the concept of fonds, the knowledge of documentary form and the knowledge of document creation context. At the end, it demonstrates that archival knowledge can be defined as being a reunion of three indivisible facets in which the archival bond will be contemplated.

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=791,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 791, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=791)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Attempts at evaluating the different methods of investigating the meaning of a term in the writings of L. Wittgenstein and E. Wüster. It is shown that Wittgenstein's view of meaning is in contrast to conceptual thinking. The differences in approach and result are pointed out. Parallels of semantic methods to the ones in conceptology are shown

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 3254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=3254,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 3254, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3254)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The multidimensional language model, as describes in a previous paper (1998, no.2), makes it possible to define a number of concepts, including denotation and signification. Shows that the 'classical semantic triangle', which is commonly used to express denotation and signification, does not contradict the principles of the model. Concludes that the multidimensional language model is a truly universal tool reflecting accurately both semantics and syntax

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper present an alternative approach to knowledge organization based on semiotic reasoning. The semantic distance between domain specific terminology and KOS is analyzed by means of their different sign systems. It is argued that a faceted approach may provide the means needed to minimize the gap between knowledge domains and KOS.

0.0070806327 = product of:
  0.035403162 = sum of:
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1440, 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=1440)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik