Search (144 results, page 1 of 8)

0.08125464 = product of:
  0.2031366 = sum of:
    0.17537674 = weight(_text_:books in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17537674 = score(doc=4633,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.70841163 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.

Content

Teil eines Special Issue: Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities. Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2018-0152.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.04579376 = product of:
  0.2289688 = sum of:
    0.2289688 = weight(_text_:books in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2289688 = score(doc=1548,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.9248898 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citation indicators are increasingly used in book-based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non-Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961-2012 in 1 non-Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non-Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly-cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.

Object

Google Books

0.03739045 = product of:
  0.18695223 = sum of:
    0.18695223 = weight(_text_:books in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18695223 = score(doc=4920,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.75516933 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

Object

Google Books

0.03547169 = product of:
  0.17735845 = sum of:
    0.17735845 = weight(_text_:books in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17735845 = score(doc=2768,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.7164165 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.032381076 = product of:
  0.16190538 = sum of:
    0.16190538 = weight(_text_:books in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16190538 = score(doc=294,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6539958 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Documentation (JOD) and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The citation data were drawn from references of each article of JOD during 1998 and 2008. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Findings - The results of this study revealed that journal articles are the most cited document, followed by books and book chapters, electronic resources, and conference proceedings, respectively. The three main classes of cited journals in JOD papers are library science, science, and social sciences. The three subclasses of non-LIS journals that were highly cited in JOD papers are Science, "Mathematics. Computer science", and "Industries. Land use. Labor". The three highly cited subjects of library and information science journals encompass searching, information work, and online information retrieval. The most cited main class of books in JOD papers is library and information science, followed by social sciences, science, "Philosophy. Psychology. Religion." The three highly cited subclasses of books in JOD papers are "Books (General). Writing. Paleography. Book industries and trade. Libraries. Bibliography," "Philology and linguistics," and Science, and the most cited subject of books is information storage and retrieval systems. Originality/value - Results for the present research found that information science, as represented by JOD, is a developing discipline with an expanding literature relating to multiple subject areas.

0.032381076 = product of:
  0.16190538 = sum of:
    0.16190538 = weight(_text_:books in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16190538 = score(doc=1658,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6539958 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.

Object

Google Books

0.029559745 = product of:
  0.14779872 = sum of:
    0.14779872 = weight(_text_:books in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14779872 = score(doc=2946,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5970138 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

Object

Google books

0.029559745 = product of:
  0.14779872 = sum of:
    0.14779872 = weight(_text_:books in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14779872 = score(doc=3768,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5970138 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.027476257 = product of:
  0.13738129 = sum of:
    0.13738129 = weight(_text_:books in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13738129 = score(doc=4240,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5549339 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the bibliographic references made by all papers published by ACM in 2006. Both an automatic classification of all references and a human classification of a random sample of them resulted that around 40% of the references are to conference proceedings papers, around 30% are to journal papers, and around 8% are to books. Among the other types of documents, standards and RFC correspond to 3% of the references, technical and other reports correspond to 4%, and other Web references to 3%. Among the documents cited at least 10 times by the 2006 ACM papers, 41% are conferences papers, 37% are books, and 16% are journal papers.

Content

Ergebnisse: - Conferences amounts to around 40% of the references in the CS papers - Journal papers amounts to 30% of the references - 41% of the papers cited more than 10 times are from conferences - 37% of the documents cited more than 10 times are books

0.02289688 = product of:
  0.1144844 = sum of:
    0.1144844 = weight(_text_:books in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1144844 = score(doc=2037,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.4624449 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.

0.022207877 = product of:
  0.111039385 = sum of:
    0.111039385 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111039385 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.022207877 = product of:
  0.111039385 = sum of:
    0.111039385 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111039385 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.022207877 = product of:
  0.111039385 = sum of:
    0.111039385 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111039385 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.021151232 = product of:
  0.105756156 = sum of:
    0.105756156 = weight(_text_:books in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105756156 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.42718828 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bradford's law of scatter was applied to the analysis of the authors of source documents on the subject of classification schemes, published in core periodicals over the period 1981-1990. Results indicated that: core authors of the international classification system literature are Library of Congress, M. Dewey, S. Ranganathan, J. Comaroni, A. Neelameghan, L. Chan and K. Markey; the highly cited authors are linked either to the developers of the classification schemes or to a research centre, or else they authored the most frequently cited books; and the data conforms to Bradford's Law of Scatter

0.021151232 = product of:
  0.105756156 = sum of:
    0.105756156 = weight(_text_:books in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105756156 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.42718828 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.

0.019629175 = product of:
  0.09814587 = sum of:
    0.09814587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09814587 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.019629175 = product of:
  0.09814587 = sum of:
    0.09814587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09814587 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.019431893 = product of:
  0.09715946 = sum of:
    0.09715946 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09715946 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.019431893 = product of:
  0.09715946 = sum of:
    0.09715946 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09715946 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, 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=6902)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.019431893 = product of:
  0.09715946 = sum of:
    0.09715946 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09715946 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55