Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Noruzi, A.: Google Scholar : the new generation of citation indexes (2005) 0.11 
    0.10708594 = product of:
  0.21417189 = sum of:
    0.21417189 = product of:
      0.42834377 = sum of:
        0.42834377 = weight(_text_:scholar in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.42834377 = score(doc=5061,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.3060018 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which others cite a specific article, as it has a "cited by" feature. This study begins with an overview of how to use Google Scholar for citation analysis and identifies advanced search techniques not well documented by Google Scholar. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of "Webometrics." It makes several suggestions for improving Google Scholar. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  2. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007) 0.09 
    0.089238286 = product of:
  0.17847657 = sum of:
    0.17847657 = product of:
      0.35695314 = sum of:
        0.35695314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35695314 = score(doc=337,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0883348 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  3. Mayr, P.; Walter, A.-K.: Abdeckung und Aktualität des Suchdienstes Google Scholar (2006) 0.09 
    0.0874353 = product of:
  0.1748706 = sum of:
    0.1748706 = product of:
      0.3497412 = sum of:
        0.3497412 = weight(_text_:scholar in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3497412 = score(doc=5131,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0663459 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  4. Whitley, K.M.: Analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science citation searches (2002) 0.07 
    0.07213046 = product of:
  0.14426091 = sum of:
    0.14426091 = product of:
      0.28852183 = sum of:
        0.28852183 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28852183 = score(doc=1255,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.87969065 = fieldWeight in 1255, 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=1255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Chemical Abstracts Service recently unveiled citation searching in Chemical Abstracts. With Chemical Abstracts and Science Citation Index both now available for citation searching, this study compares the duplication and uniqueness of citing references for works of chemistry researchers for the years 1999-2001. The two indexes cover very similar source material, so one would expect the citation results to be very similar. This analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science shows some important differences as the databases are currently offered. Authors and institutions using citation counts as measures of scientific productivity should take note.
    Object
    SciFinder Scholar
  5. Lewandowski, D.: Spezialsuche für wissenschaftliche Informationen (2004) 0.06 
    0.05949219 = product of:
  0.11898438 = sum of:
    0.11898438 = product of:
      0.23796876 = sum of:
        0.23796876 = weight(_text_:scholar in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23796876 = score(doc=3298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.72555655 = fieldWeight in 3298, 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=3298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Object
    Google Scholar
  6. Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008) 0.06 
    0.05889426 = product of:
  0.11778852 = sum of:
    0.11778852 = product of:
      0.23557705 = sum of:
        0.23557705 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23557705 = score(doc=1735,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.71826434 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.
    Object
    Google Scholar
  7. Barnett, G.A.; Fink, E.L.: Impact of the internet and scholar age distribution on academic citation age (2008) 0.05 
    0.0504808 = product of:
  0.1009616 = sum of:
    0.1009616 = product of:
      0.2019232 = sum of:
        0.2019232 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2019232 = score(doc=1376,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.6156552 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article examines the impact of the Internet and the age distribution of research scholars on academic citation age with a mathematical model proposed by Barnett, Fink, and Debus (1989) and a revised model that incorporates information about the online environment and scholar age distribution. The modified model fits the data well, accounting for 99.6% of the variance for science citations and 99.8% for social science citations. The Internet's impact on the aging process of academic citations has been very small, accounting for only 0.1% for the social sciences and 0.8% for the sciences. Rather than resulting in the use of more recent citations, the Internet appears to have lengthened the average life of academic citations by 6 to 8 months. The aging of scholars seems to have a greater impact, accounting for 2.8% of the variance for the sciences and 0.9% for the social sciences. However, because the diffusion of the Internet and the aging of the professoriate are correlated over this time period, differentiating their effects is somewhat problematic.
  8. Garfield, E.; Pudovkin, A.I.; Istomin, V.S.: Why do we need algorithmic historiography? (2003) 0.05 
    0.04759375 = product of:
  0.0951875 = sum of:
    0.0951875 = product of:
      0.190375 = sum of:
        0.190375 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.190375 = score(doc=1606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.58044523 = fieldWeight in 1606, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article discusses the rationale for creating historiographs of scholarly topics using a new program called HistCite(TM), which produces a variety of analyses to aid the historian identify key events (papers), people (authors), and journals in a field. By creating a genealogic profile of the evolution, the program aids the scholar in evaluating the paradigm involved.
  9. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027066834 = product of:
  0.05413367 = sum of:
    0.05413367 = product of:
      0.10826734 = sum of:
        0.10826734 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10826734 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  10. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    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
  11. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02 
    0.016916772 = product of:
  0.033833545 = sum of:
    0.033833545 = product of:
      0.06766709 = sum of:
        0.06766709 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06766709 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, 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=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  12. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.0143543575 = product of:
  0.028708715 = sum of:
    0.028708715 = product of:
      0.05741743 = sum of:
        0.05741743 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05741743 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  13. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.0118417395 = product of:
  0.023683479 = sum of:
    0.023683479 = product of:
      0.047366958 = sum of:
        0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047366958 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  14. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.0118417395 = product of:
  0.023683479 = sum of:
    0.023683479 = product of:
      0.047366958 = sum of:
        0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047366958 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  15. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01 
    0.010150063 = product of:
  0.020300126 = sum of:
    0.020300126 = product of:
      0.04060025 = sum of:
        0.04060025 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060025 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
  16. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01 
    0.010150063 = product of:
  0.020300126 = sum of:
    0.020300126 = product of:
      0.04060025 = sum of:
        0.04060025 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060025 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  17. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.010150063 = product of:
  0.020300126 = sum of:
    0.020300126 = product of:
      0.04060025 = sum of:
        0.04060025 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060025 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  18. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.010150063 = product of:
  0.020300126 = sum of:
    0.020300126 = product of:
      0.04060025 = sum of:
        0.04060025 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060025 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  19. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01 
    0.010150063 = product of:
  0.020300126 = sum of:
    0.020300126 = product of:
      0.04060025 = sum of:
        0.04060025 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060025 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
  20. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01 
    0.008458386 = product of:
  0.016916772 = sum of:
    0.016916772 = product of:
      0.033833545 = sum of:
        0.033833545 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033833545 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12

Authors

Languages

  • e 15
  • d 7

Types

  • a 22
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes