-
Klas, C.-P.; Fuhr, N.; Schaefer, A.: Evaluating strategic support for information access in the DAFFODIL system (2004)
0.12
0.1171913 = product of:
0.15625507 = sum of:
0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10339639 = score(doc=2419,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032486375 = score(doc=2419,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.
- Date
- 16.11.2008 16:22:48
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 8th European conference, ECDL 2004, Bath, UK, September 12-17, 2004 : proceedings. Eds.: Heery, R. u. E. Lyon
-
Schaefer, A.; Jordan, M.; Klas, C.-P.; Fuhr, N.: Active support for query formulation in virtual digital libraries : a case study with DAFFODIL (2005)
0.05
0.052653216 = product of:
0.10530643 = sum of:
0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 4296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086163655 = score(doc=4296,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 4296, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4296)
0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 4296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01914278 = score(doc=4296,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 4296, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4296)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Daffodil is a front-end to federated, heterogeneous digital libraries targeting at strategic support of users during the information seeking process. This is done by offering a variety of functions for searching, exploring and managing digital library objects. However, the distributed search increases response time and the conceptual model of the underlying search processes is inherently weaker. This makes query formulation harder and the resulting waiting times can be frustrating. In this paper, we investigate the concept of proactive support during the user's query formulation. For improving user efficiency and satisfaction, we implemented annotations, proactive support and error markers on the query form itself. These functions decrease the probability for syntactical or semantical errors in queries. Furthermore, the user is able to make better tactical decisions and feels more confident that the system handles the query properly. Evaluations with 30 subjects showed that user satisfaction is improved, whereas no conclusive results were received for efficiency.
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 9th European conference, ECDL 2005, Vienna, Austria, September 18-23, 2005 ; proceedings / Andreas Rauber ... (eds.)
-
Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000)
0.05
0.050567575 = product of:
0.10113515 = sum of:
0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053599782 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 25. 8.2005 17:42:22
- Source
- Library and information research news. 24(2000) no.77, S.30-34
-
Losee, R.M.; Church Jr., L.: Are two document clusters better than one? : the cluster performance question for information retrieval (2005)
0.04
0.043557227 = product of:
0.08711445 = sum of:
0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 3270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060314562 = score(doc=3270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 3270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3270)
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 3270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=3270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3270)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- When do information retrieval systems using two document clusters provide better retrieval performance than systems using no clustering? We answer this question for one set of assumptions and suggest how this may be studied with other assumptions. The "Cluster Hypothesis" asks an empirical question about the relationships between documents and user-supplied relevance judgments, while the "Cluster Performance Question" proposed here focuses an the when and why of information retrieval or digital library performance for clustered and unclustered text databases. This may be generalized to study the relative performance of m versus n clusters.
-
Khoo, C.S.G.; Wan, K.-W.: ¬A simple relevancy-ranking strategy for an interface to Boolean OPACs (2004)
0.02
0.019341866 = product of:
0.03868373 = sum of:
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=2509,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
0.011883841 = product of:
0.023767682 = sum of:
0.023767682 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023767682 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Content
- "Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."
- Source
- Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120
-
Kwok, K.L.: Improving English and Chinese ad-hoc retrieval : a TIPSTER text phase 3 project report (2000)
0.02
0.017266076 = product of:
0.069064304 = sum of:
0.069064304 = product of:
0.13812861 = sum of:
0.13812861 = weight(_text_:project in 6388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13812861 = score(doc=6388,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.6528997 = fieldWeight in 6388, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6388)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
French, J.C.; Powell, A.L.; Schulman, E.: Using clustering strategies for creating authority files (2000)
0.01
0.012924549 = product of:
0.051698197 = sum of:
0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051698197 = score(doc=4811,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- As more online databases are integrated into digital libraries, the issue of quality control of the data becomes increasingly important, especially as it relates to the effective retrieval of information. Authority work, the need to discover and reconcile variant forms of strings in bibliographical entries, will become more critical in the future. Spelling variants, misspellings, and transliteration differences will all increase the difficulty of retrieving information. We investigate a number of approximate string matching techniques that have traditionally been used to help with this problem. We then introduce the notion of approximate word matching and show how it can be used to improve detection and categorization of variant forms. We demonstrate the utility of these approaches using data from the Astrophysics Data System and show how we can reduce the human effort involved in the creation of authority files
-
MacFarlane, A.; Robertson, S.E.; McCann, J.A.: Parallel computing for passage retrieval (2004)
0.01
0.0067907665 = product of:
0.027163066 = sum of:
0.027163066 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=5108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5108, 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=5108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 18:30:22
-
Losada, D.E.; Barreiro, A.: Emebedding term similarity and inverse document frequency into a logical model of information retrieval (2003)
0.01
0.0067907665 = product of:
0.027163066 = sum of:
0.027163066 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1422, 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=1422)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2003 19:27:23
-
Lewandowski, D.: How can library materials be ranked in the OPAC? (2009)
0.01
0.0067679947 = product of:
0.027071979 = sum of:
0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027071979 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Some Online Public Access Catalogues offer a ranking component. However, ranking there is merely text-based and is doomed to fail due to limited text in bibliographic data. The main assumption for the talk is that we are in a situation where the appropriate ranking factors for OPACs should be defined, while the implementation is no major problem. We must define what we want, and not so much focus on the technical work. Some deep thinking is necessary on the "perfect results set" and how we can achieve it through ranking. The talk presents a set of potential ranking factors and clustering possibilities for further discussion. A look at commercial Web search engines could provide us with ideas how ranking can be improved with additional factors. Search engines are way beyond pure text-based ranking and apply ranking factors in the groups like popularity, freshness, personalisation, etc. The talk describes the main factors used in search engines and how derivatives of these could be used for libraries' purposes. The goal of ranking is to provide the user with the best-suitable results on top of the results list. How can this goal be achieved with the library catalogue and also concerning the library's different collections and databases? The assumption is that ranking of such materials is a complex problem and is yet nowhere near solved. Libraries should focus on ranking to improve user experience.
-
Lalmas, M.: XML information retrieval (2009)
0.01
0.006699973 = product of:
0.026799891 = sum of:
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Dannenberg, R.B.; Birmingham, W.P.; Pardo, B.; Hu, N.; Meek, C.; Tzanetakis, G.: ¬A comparative evaluation of search techniques for query-by-humming using the MUSART testbed (2007)
0.01
0.0061664553 = product of:
0.024665821 = sum of:
0.024665821 = product of:
0.049331643 = sum of:
0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049331643 = score(doc=269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 269, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=269)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Query-by-humming systems offer content-based searching for melodies and require no special musical training or knowledge. Many such systems have been built, but there has not been much useful evaluation and comparison in the literature due to the lack of shared databases and queries. The MUSART project testbed allows various search algorithms to be compared using a shared framework that automatically runs experiments and summarizes results. Using this testbed, the authors compared algorithms based on string alignment, melodic contour matching, a hidden Markov model, n-grams, and CubyHum. Retrieval performance is very sensitive to distance functions and the representation of pitch and rhythm, which raises questions about some previously published conclusions. Some algorithms are particularly sensitive to the quality of queries. Our queries, which are taken from human subjects in a realistic setting, are quite difficult, especially for n-gram models. Finally, simulations on query-by-humming performance as a function of database size indicate that retrieval performance falls only slowly as the database size increases.
-
Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005)
0.01
0.0059419204 = product of:
0.023767682 = sum of:
0.023767682 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047535364 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 3.2005 16:23:22
-
Crestani, F.; Dominich, S.; Lalmas, M.; Rijsbergen, C.J.K. van: Mathematical, logical, and formal methods in information retrieval : an introduction to the special issue (2003)
0.01
0.005093075 = product of:
0.0203723 = sum of:
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2003 19:27:36
-
Fan, W.; Fox, E.A.; Pathak, P.; Wu, H.: ¬The effects of fitness functions an genetic programming-based ranking discovery for Web search (2004)
0.01
0.005093075 = product of:
0.0203723 = sum of:
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=2239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2239, 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=2239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 31. 5.2004 19:22:06
-
Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003)
0.01
0.005093075 = product of:
0.0203723 = sum of:
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 11. 9.2004 17:32:22
-
Witschel, H.F.: Global term weights in distributed environments (2008)
0.01
0.005093075 = product of:
0.0203723 = sum of:
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2096, 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=2096)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 1. 8.2008 9:44:22
-
Campos, L.M. de; Fernández-Luna, J.M.; Huete, J.F.: Implementing relevance feedback in the Bayesian network retrieval model (2003)
0.01
0.005093075 = product of:
0.0203723 = sum of:
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=825,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 825, 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=825)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2003 19:30:19
-
Jacso, P.: Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster (2008)
0.00
0.004785695 = product of:
0.01914278 = sum of:
0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01914278 = score(doc=5586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 5586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5586)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library trends. 56(2008) no.4, S.784-815
-
Song, D.; Bruza, P.D.: Towards context sensitive information inference (2003)
0.00
0.0042442293 = product of:
0.016976917 = sum of:
0.016976917 = product of:
0.033953834 = sum of:
0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033953834 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2003 19:35:46
