Search (173 results, page 1 of 9)

0.16794439 = product of:
  0.33588877 = sum of:
    0.33588877 = sum of:
      0.28852183 = weight(_text_:scholar in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28852183 = score(doc=40,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.87969065 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047366958 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Object

Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar

0.16168231 = product of:
  0.32336462 = sum of:
    0.32336462 = sum of:
      0.26923093 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26923093 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.82087356 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.05413367 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05413367 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

Object

Google Scholar

0.110181086 = product of:
  0.22036217 = sum of:
    0.22036217 = product of:
      0.44072434 = sum of:
        0.44072434 = weight(_text_:scholar in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.44072434 = score(doc=4548,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.3437496 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I believe that Google Scholar is the most popular academic indexing way for researchers and citations. However, some other indexing institutions may be more professional than Google Scholar but not as popular as Google Scholar. Other indexing websites like Scopus and Clarivate are providing more statistical figures for scholars, institutions or even journals. On account of publication citations, always Google Scholar shows higher citations for a paper than other indexing websites since Google Scholar consider most of the publication platforms so he can easily count the citations. While other databases just consider the citations come from those journals that are already indexed in their database

Object

Google Scholar

0.103043504 = product of:
  0.20608701 = sum of:
    0.20608701 = product of:
      0.41217402 = sum of:
        0.41217402 = weight(_text_:scholar in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.41217402 = score(doc=854,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.2567009 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gegenüberstellung der Berechnung des h-Index in den drei Tools mit Beispiel Stephen Hawking (WoS: 59, Scopus: 19, Google Scholar: 76)

Object

Google Scholar

0.10200785 = product of:
  0.2040157 = sum of:
    0.2040157 = product of:
      0.4080314 = sum of:
        0.4080314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 94) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4080314 = score(doc=94,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.2440703 = fieldWeight in 94, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=94)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When I interned at Google last summer after getting my MSI degree, I worked on projects for the Book Search and Google Scholar teams. I didn't know it at the time, but in completing my research over the course of the summer, I would become the resident expert on how universities were approaching Google Scholar as a research tool and how they were implementing Scholar on their library websites. Now working at an academic library, I seized a recent opportunity to sit down with Anurag Acharya, Google Scholar's founding engineer, to delve a little deeper into how Scholar features are developed and prioritized, what Scholar's scope and aims are, and where the product is headed. -Tracey Hughes, GIS Coordinator, Social Sciences & Humanities Library, University of California San Diego

Object

Google Scholar

0.083289064 = product of:
  0.16657813 = sum of:
    0.16657813 = product of:
      0.33315626 = sum of:
        0.33315626 = weight(_text_:scholar in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33315626 = score(doc=855,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0157791 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Publication in academic journals is a key criterion for appointment, tenure and promotion in universities. Many universities weigh publications according to the quality or impact of the journal. Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed through the ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This paper proposes an alternative metric - Hirsch's h-index - and data source - Google Scholar - to assess journal impact. Using a systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI JIF for a sample of 838 journals in Economics & Business, we argue that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.

Object

Google Scholar

0.06610346 = product of:
  0.13220692 = sum of:
    0.13220692 = product of:
      0.39662075 = sum of:
        0.39662075 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39662075 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42342493 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.05949219 = product of:
  0.11898438 = sum of:
    0.11898438 = product of:
      0.23796876 = sum of:
        0.23796876 = weight(_text_:scholar in 2443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23796876 = score(doc=2443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.72555655 = fieldWeight in 2443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Weg von Google: Die besten Suchmaschinen-Alternativen, lautet der Titel eines Artikels im Standard. Und wieder ist meine Antwort, dass es dumm und töricht wäre, für wissenschaftliche Zwecke auf eine Google-Direktabfrage zu verzichten. Insbesondere die Einbindung von Ergebnissen aus Google Books, zu dem man direkt wechseln kann, und Google Scholar, macht die Google Websuche unverzichtbar.

0.05288277 = product of:
  0.10576554 = sum of:
    0.10576554 = product of:
      0.3172966 = sum of:
        0.3172966 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3172966 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42342493 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.041644532 = product of:
  0.083289064 = sum of:
    0.083289064 = product of:
      0.16657813 = sum of:
        0.16657813 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16657813 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.50788957 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Vanda, lecturer at SLAIS and ISKOUK Chairperson, provided an account of the origins of faceted classification in the work of the eminent Indian scholar and librarian S. R. Ranganathan in the 1930s and described how its influence persists today. Ranganathan himself derived inspiration for his Colon Classification from Meccano, which he came across in a London toy shop whilst studying at UCL in 1924. Vanda, on the other hand, proposed that the molecular model is perhaps a better representation

0.03569531 = product of:
  0.07139062 = sum of:
    0.07139062 = product of:
      0.14278124 = sum of:
        0.14278124 = weight(_text_:scholar in 2872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14278124 = score(doc=2872,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.4353339 = fieldWeight in 2872, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

BASE (https://www.base-search.net) ermöglicht seit Anfang April eine Suche nach über 90 Millionen Dokumenten, deren Metadaten von über 4.200 Dokumentenservern (Repositories) wissenschaftlicher Institutionen weltweit bereit gestellt werden. Damit ist BASE nach Google Scholar die größte Suchmaschine für wissenschaftliche, frei im Internet verfügbare Dokumente. Für über 30 Mio. Dokumente, die in BASE zu finden sind, können wir aufgrund von Informationen in den Metadaten einen Open-Access-Status ausweisen, insgesamt schätzen wir den Open-Access-Anteil derzeit auf 60%. Über ein Boosting-Verfahren werden Nachweise zu Open-Access-Dokumenten bevorzugt angezeigt, ebenso ist ein gezieltes Suchen unter Berücksichtigung verschiedener Lizenz- und Rechteangaben möglich. Der BASE-Index steht über verschiedene Schnittstellen zahlreichen anderen kommerziellen und nicht-kommerziellen Discovery-Systemen, Suchmaschinen, Datenbankanbietern, Fachbibliotheken und Entwicklern zur Nachnutzung zur Verfügung. BASE trägt damit wesentlich zur Nutzung von Inhalten auf Dokumentservern bei. Weitere Informationen: https://www.base-search.net/

0.03569531 = product of:
  0.07139062 = sum of:
    0.07139062 = product of:
      0.14278124 = sum of:
        0.14278124 = weight(_text_:scholar in 3562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14278124 = score(doc=3562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.4353339 = fieldWeight in 3562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the start of the new year 2017, about 60 universities and other research institutions in Germany are set to lose subscription access to one of the main STEM publishers, Elsevier. The reason being negotiations of the DEAL consortium (600 institutions in total) with the publisher. In the run-up to these negotiations, all members of the consortium were urged to not renew their individual subscriptions with the publisher and most institutions apparently followed this call. As the first Elsevier offer was rejected by DEAL and further negotiations have been postponed until 2017, the participating institutions whose individual contract runs out this year will be without continued subscription access - as long as they don't cave in and broker new individual contracts. At first, this may seem like a massive problem for all students and faculty at these institutions. However, there are now so many alternative access strategies, that the well-informed scholar may not even notice much of a difference. Here are ten different options, in no particular order.

0.03305173 = product of:
  0.06610346 = sum of:
    0.06610346 = product of:
      0.19831038 = sum of:
        0.19831038 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19831038 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42342493 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.03305173 = product of:
  0.06610346 = sum of:
    0.06610346 = product of:
      0.19831038 = sum of:
        0.19831038 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19831038 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42342493 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.027066834 = product of:
  0.05413367 = sum of:
    0.05413367 = product of:
      0.10826734 = sum of:
        0.10826734 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10826734 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, 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=5449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:26:34

0.027066834 = product of:
  0.05413367 = sum of:
    0.05413367 = product of:
      0.10826734 = sum of:
        0.10826734 = weight(_text_:22 in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10826734 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5837, 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=5837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.11.1996 13:22:37

0.027066834 = product of:
  0.05413367 = sum of:
    0.05413367 = product of:
      0.10826734 = sum of:
        0.10826734 = weight(_text_:22 in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10826734 = score(doc=4085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4085, 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=4085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7.11.1999 18:22:39

0.026478937 = product of:
  0.052957874 = sum of:
    0.052957874 = product of:
      0.10591575 = sum of:
        0.10591575 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10591575 = score(doc=1936,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.6055961 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 (DDC 22) will be issued simultaneously in print and web versions in July 2003. The new edition is the first full print update to the Dewey Decimal Classification system in seven years-it includes several significant updates and many new numbers and topics. DDC 22 also features some fundamental structural changes that have been introduced with the goals of promoting classifier efficiency and improving the DDC for use in a variety of applications in the web environment. Most importantly, the content of the new edition has been shaped by the needs and recommendations of Dewey users around the world. The worldwide user community has an important role in shaping the future of the DDC.

Object

DDC-22

0.023923928 = product of:
  0.047847856 = sum of:
    0.047847856 = product of:
      0.09569571 = sum of:
        0.09569571 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09569571 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.023923928 = product of:
  0.047847856 = sum of:
    0.047847856 = product of:
      0.09569571 = sum of:
        0.09569571 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09569571 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, 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=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38