Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

0.030961553 = product of:
  0.061923105 = sum of:
    0.061923105 = sum of:
      0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 3070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02656075 = score(doc=3070,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05220068 = queryNorm
          0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3070, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3070)
      0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 3070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035362355 = score(doc=3070,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05220068 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3070, 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=3070)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate user experiences with a touch-wall interface featuring both clustering and categorization representations of available e-books in a public library to understand human information interactions under work-focused and recreational contexts. Design/methodology/approach - Researchers collected questionnaires from 251 New Taipei City Library visitors who used the touch-wall interface to search for new titles. The authors applied structural equation modelling to examine relationships among hedonic/utilitarian needs, clustering and categorization representations, perceived ease of use (EU) and the extent to which users experienced anxiety and uncertainty (AU) while interacting with the interface. Findings - Utilitarian users who have an explicit idea of what they intend to find tend to prefer the categorization interface. A hedonic-oriented user tends to prefer clustering interfaces. Users reported EU regardless of which interface they engaged with. Results revealed that use of the clustering interface had a negative correlation with AU. Users that seek to satisfy utilitarian needs tended to emphasize the importance of perceived EU, whilst pleasure-seeking users were a little more tolerant of anxiety or uncertainty. Originality/value - The Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC) encourages library visitors to borrow digital books through the implementation of an information visualization system. This situation poses an opportunity to validate uses and gratification theory. People with hedonic/utilitarian needs displayed different risk-control attitudes and affected uncertainty using the interface. Knowledge about user interaction with such interfaces is vital when launching the development of a new OPAC.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0212486 = product of:
  0.0424972 = sum of:
    0.0424972 = product of:
      0.0849944 = sum of:
        0.0849944 = weight(_text_:online in 2413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0849944 = score(doc=2413,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.5364998 = fieldWeight in 2413, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The first of two articles discusses virtual reality (VR) and online databases; the second one reports on an interview with Thomas A. Furness III, who defines VR and explains work at the Human Interface Technology Laboratory (HIT). Sidebars contain a glossary of VR terms and a conversation with Toni Emerson, the HIT lab's librarian.

Issue

Article [and]"Online" interviews Dr. Thomas A. Furness III, Virtual Reality Pioneer.

Source

Online. 16(1992) no.6, S.12-15,17-18,20-22,24-27

0.018576931 = product of:
  0.037153862 = sum of:
    0.037153862 = sum of:
      0.015936451 = weight(_text_:online in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015936451 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05220068 = queryNorm
          0.100593716 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.021217413 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021217413 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05220068 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Bill Howe and his colleagues at the University of Washington, in Seattle, decided to find out. First, they trained a computer algorithm to distinguish between various sorts of figures-which they defined as diagrams, equations, photographs, plots (such as bar charts and scatter graphs) and tables. They exposed their algorithm to between 400 and 600 images of each of these types of figure until it could distinguish them with an accuracy greater than 90%. Then they set it loose on the more-than-650,000 papers (containing more than 10m figures) stored on PubMed Central, an online archive of biomedical-research articles. To measure each paper's influence, they calculated its article-level Eigenfactor score-a modified version of the PageRank algorithm Google uses to provide the most relevant results for internet searches. Eigenfactor scoring gives a better measure than simply noting the number of times a paper is cited elsewhere, because it weights citations by their influence. A citation in a paper that is itself highly cited is worth more than one in a paper that is not.
As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.

0.017681178 = product of:
  0.035362355 = sum of:
    0.035362355 = product of:
      0.07072471 = sum of:
        0.07072471 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07072471 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, 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=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.017681178 = product of:
  0.035362355 = sum of:
    0.035362355 = product of:
      0.07072471 = sum of:
        0.07072471 = weight(_text_:22 in 2755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07072471 = score(doc=2755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2755, 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=2755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.015002978 = product of:
  0.030005956 = sum of:
    0.030005956 = product of:
      0.060011912 = sum of:
        0.060011912 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060011912 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:54:03
22. 1.2017 17:10:56

0.0131469015 = product of:
  0.026293803 = sum of:
    0.026293803 = product of:
      0.052587606 = sum of:
        0.052587606 = weight(_text_:online in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052587606 = score(doc=232,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.33194235 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines some traditional information searching methods and their role in Hungarian OPACs. What challenges are there in the digital and online environment? How do users work with them and do they give users satisfactory results? What kinds of techniques are users employing? In this paper I examine the user interfaces of UDC, thesauri, subject headings etc. in the Hungarian library. The key question of the paper is whether a universal system or local solutions is the best approach for searching in the digital environment.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.012376824 = product of:
  0.024753649 = sum of:
    0.024753649 = product of:
      0.049507298 = sum of:
        0.049507298 = weight(_text_:22 in 2500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049507298 = score(doc=2500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2500, 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=2500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 1.2007 18:22:41

0.01187833 = product of:
  0.02375666 = sum of:
    0.02375666 = product of:
      0.04751332 = sum of:
        0.04751332 = weight(_text_:online in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04751332 = score(doc=688,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.29991254 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of search interfaces of Swedish online museum collections, focussing on search functionalities with particular reference to subject searching, as well as the use of controlled vocabularies, with the purpose of identifying which improvements of the search interfaces are needed to ensure high-quality information retrieval for the end user. Design/methodology/approach In the first step, a set of 21 search interface criteria was identified, based on related research and current standards in the domain of cultural heritage knowledge organization. Secondly, a complete set of Swedish museums that provide online access to their collections was identified, comprising nine cross-search services and 91 individual museums' websites. These 100 websites were each evaluated against the 21 criteria, between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Findings Although many standards and guidelines are in place to ensure quality-controlled subject indexing, which in turn support information retrieval of relevant resources (as individual or full search results), the study shows that they are not broadly implemented, resulting in information retrieval failures for the end user. The study also demonstrates a strong need for the implementation of controlled vocabularies in these museums. Originality/value This study is a rare piece of research which examines subject searching in online museums; the 21 search criteria and their use in the analysis of the complete set of online collections of a country represents a considerable and unique contribution to the fields of knowledge organization and information retrieval of cultural heritage. Its particular value lies in showing how the needs of end users, many of which are documented and reflected in international standards and guidelines, should be taken into account in designing search tools for these museums; especially so in subject searching, which is the most complex and yet the most common type of search. Much effort has been invested into digitizing cultural heritage collections, but access to them is hindered by poor search functionality. This study identifies which are the most important aspects to improve.

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, 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=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 14:35:21

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 3693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=3693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3693, 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=3693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2010 19:36:46

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 2.2015 9:22:39

0.009390644 = product of:
  0.018781288 = sum of:
    0.018781288 = product of:
      0.037562575 = sum of:
        0.037562575 = weight(_text_:online in 3562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037562575 = score(doc=3562,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 3562, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The VIBE (Visual Information Browsing Environment) prototype system, which was developed at Molde College in Norway in conjunction with researchers at the University of Pittsburgh, allows users to evaluate documents from a retrieved set that is graphically represented as geometric icons within one screen display. While the formal modeling behind VIBE and other information visualization retrieval systems is weIl known, user interaction with the system is not. This investigation tested the designer assumption that VIBE is a tool for a smart (expert) user and asked: What are the effects of the different levels of user expertise upon VIBE usability? Three user groups including novices, online searching experts, and VIBE system experts totaling 31 participants were tested over two sessions with VIBE. Participants selected appropriate features to complete tasks, but did not always solve the tasks correctly. Task timings improved over repeated use with VIBE and the nontypical visually oriented tasks were resolved more successfully than others. Statistically significant differences were not found among all parameters examined between novices and online experts. The VIBE system experts provided the predicted baseline for this study and the VIBE designer assumption was shown to be correct. The study's results point toward further exploration of cognitive preattentive processing, which may help to understand better the novice/expert paradigm when testing a visualized interface design for information retrieval.

0.009390644 = product of:
  0.018781288 = sum of:
    0.018781288 = product of:
      0.037562575 = sum of:
        0.037562575 = weight(_text_:online in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037562575 = score(doc=82,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5,968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1,712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. A vector-space model Is used for normalization, and the results are brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04 as input files for the visualization program Pajek. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self-)citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of Interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.

0.009390644 = product of:
  0.018781288 = sum of:
    0.018781288 = product of:
      0.037562575 = sum of:
        0.037562575 = weight(_text_:online in 1463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037562575 = score(doc=1463,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 1463, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of graphical representations is very common in information technology and engineering. Although these same tools could be applied effectively in other areas, they are not used because they are hardly known or are completely unheard of. This article aims to discuss the results of the experimentation carried out on graphical approaches to knowledge representation during research, analysis and problem-solving in the health care sector. The experimentation was carried out on conceptual mapping and Petri Nets, developed collaboratively online with the aid of the CMapTool and WoPeD graphic applications. Two distinct professional communities have been involved in the research, both pertaining to the Local Health Units in Tuscany. One community is made up of head physicians and health care managers whilst the other is formed by technical staff from the Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene. It emerged from the experimentation that concept maps arc considered more effective in analyzing knowledge domain related to the problem to be faced (description of what it is). On the other hand, Petri Nets arc more effective in studying and formalizing its possible solutions (description of what to do to). For the same reason, those involved in the experimentation have proposed the complementary rather than alternative use of the two knowledge representation methods as a support for professional problem-solving.

0.009296263 = product of:
  0.018592525 = sum of:
    0.018592525 = product of:
      0.03718505 = sum of:
        0.03718505 = weight(_text_:online in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03718505 = score(doc=5774,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.009200915 = product of:
  0.01840183 = sum of:
    0.01840183 = product of:
      0.03680366 = sum of:
        0.03680366 = weight(_text_:online in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03680366 = score(doc=2643,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23231125 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Selection of search terms in an online search environment can be facilitated by the visual display of a knowledge map showing the various concepts and their links. This paper reports an a preliminary research aimed at designing a prototype knowledge map using DDC and its visual display. The prototype knowledge map created using the Protégé and TGViz freeware has been demonstrated, and further areas of research in this field are discussed.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.008840589 = product of:
  0.017681178 = sum of:
    0.017681178 = product of:
      0.035362355 = sum of:
        0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 1397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035362355 = score(doc=1397,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1397, 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=1397)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 14:29:25

0.008840589 = product of:
  0.017681178 = sum of:
    0.017681178 = product of:
      0.035362355 = sum of:
        0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035362355 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05