Search (59 results, page 1 of 3)

0.09793863 = product of:
  0.14690794 = sum of:
    0.12679936 = weight(_text_:systematic in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12679936 = score(doc=464,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44652134 = fieldWeight in 464, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=464)
    0.020108584 = product of:
      0.04021717 = sum of:
        0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04021717 = score(doc=464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In recent years, different cultural institutions have made efforts to spread culture through the construction of a unique search interface that integrates their digital objects and facilitates data retrieval for lay users. However, integrating cultural data is not a trivial task; therefore, this work performs a systematic literature review on data aggregation workflows, in order to answer five questions: What are the projects? What are the planned steps? Which technologies are used? Are the steps performed manually, automatically, or semi-automatically? Which perform semantic search? The searches were carried out in three databases: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Scopus and Web of Science. In Q01, 12 projects were selected. In Q02, 9 stages were identified: Harvesting, Ingestion, Mapping, Indexing, Storing, Monitoring, Enriching, Displaying, and Publishing LOD. In Q03, 19 different technologies were found it. In Q04, we identified that most of the solutions are semi-automatic and, in Q05, that most of them perform a semantic search. The analysis of the workflows allowed us to identify that there is no consensus regarding the stages, their nomenclatures, and technologies, besides presenting superficial discussions. But it allowed to identify the main steps for the implementation of the aggregation of cultural data.

0.078800134 = product of:
  0.2364004 = sum of:
    0.2364004 = sum of:
      0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12869495 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.10770545 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10770545 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Theme

Citation indexing

0.06762633 = product of:
  0.20287897 = sum of:
    0.20287897 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20287897 = score(doc=5143,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.71443415 = fieldWeight in 5143, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5143)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Identifies the interest in questions of classified catalogues generated by the development of on-line catalogues, establishing a difference between 2 large areas: free access to information items in a systematic arrangement and expressing the contents of books by means of notational symbols in a classification system in a local catalogue. Examines the elements and structure of classification systems, the internationally important universal classifications, the procedures for book display and systematic processing in West German public libraries and exhibtion techniques in West German academic libraries. Covers universal and faceted classifications, as well as classification systems in on-line catalogues

0.04781903 = product of:
  0.14345708 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=606,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose With ready access to search engines and social media platforms, the way people find image information has evolved and diversified in the past two decades. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the literature on image information needs and behaviors. Design/methodology/approach Following an eight-step procedure for conducting systematic literature reviews, the paper presents an analysis of peer-reviewed work on image information needs and behaviors, with publications ranging from the years 1997 to 2019. Findings Application of the inclusion criteria led to 69 peer-reviewed works. These works were synthesized according to the following categories: research methods, users targeted, image types, identified needs, search behaviors and search obstacles. The reviewed studies show that people seek and use images for multiple reasons, including entertainment, illustration, aesthetic appreciation, knowledge construction, engagement, inspiration and social interactions. The reviewed studies also report that common strategies for image searches include keyword searches with short queries, browsing, specialization and reformulation. Observed trends suggest common deployment of query analysis, survey questionnaires and undergraduate participant pools to research image information needs and behavior. Originality/value At this point, after more than two decades of image information needs research, a holistic systematic review of the literature was long overdue. The way users find image information has evolved and diversified due to technological developments in image retrieval. By synthesizing this burgeoning field into specific foci, this systematic literature review provides a foundation for future empirical investigation. With this foundation set, the paper then pinpoints key research gaps to investigate, particularly the influence of user expertise, a need for more diverse population samples, a dearth of qualitative data, new search features and information and visual literacies instruction.

0.042266455 = product of:
  0.12679936 = sum of:
    0.12679936 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12679936 = score(doc=5840,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44652134 = fieldWeight in 5840, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5840)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose This paper scrutinizes the scholarship on community archives' information work. Community archives and archiving projects represent unprecedentedly democratic venues for information work centering on essential documentary concepts such as custody, collection development and appraisal, processing, arrangement and description, organization, representation and naming, collaboration, resource generation and allocation, activism and social justice, preservation, reuse, and sustainability. Design/methodology/approach Unearthed through databases searches, citation chaining, and browsing, sources examined include peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and book chapters published in the English language between 1985 and 2018. Findings The literature on community archives' information work shows considerable geographical (six continents), topical, and (inter)disciplinary variety. This paper first explores scholars' efforts to define both community and community archives. Second, it unpacks the ways in which community archives include new stakeholders and new record types and formats even as they leverage alternative archival principles and practices. Third, it discusses community archives as political venues for empowerment, activism, and social justice work. Fourth, this paper delves into the benefits and challenges of partnerships and collaborations with mainstream institutions. Fifth, it documents the obstacles community archives face: not only tensions within and among communities, but also sustainability concerns. Finally, it sets forth six directions for future research. Originality/value This paper is the first systematic review of the community archives literature.

0.042266455 = product of:
  0.12679936 = sum of:
    0.12679936 = weight(_text_:systematic in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12679936 = score(doc=760,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44652134 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems, even traditional ones, such as the Universal Decimal Classification, have been studied to improve the retrieval of information online, although the potential of using knowledge structures in the user interface has not yet been widespread. Objective: This study presents a mapping of scientific production on information retrieval methodologies, which make use of the Universal Decimal Classification. Methodology: Systematic Literature Review, conducted in two stages, with a selection of 44 publications, resulting in the time interval from 1964 to 2017, whose categories analyzed were: most productive authors, languages of publications, types of document, year of publication, most cited work, major impact journal, and thematic categories covered in the publications. Results: A total of nine more productive authors and co-authors were found; predominance of the English language (42 publications); works published in the format of journal articles (33); and highlight to the year 2007 (eight publications). In addition, it was identified that the most cited work was by Mcilwaine (1997), with 61 citations, and the journal Extensions & Corrections to the UDC was the one with the largest number of publications, in addition to the incidence of the theme Universal Automation linked to a thesaurus for information retrieval, present in 19 works. Conclusions: Shortage of studies that explore the potential of the Decimal Classification, especially in Brazilian literature, which highlights the need for further study on the topic, involving research at the national and international levels.

Footnote

Englischer Titel: Use of the Universal Decimal Classification for the recoery of information in digital environments: a systematic review of literature.

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=5929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 5929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5929)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A systematic literature review is carried out, detailing the research topics and the methods and techniques used in information science in studies published between 2000 and 2019. The results obtained allow us to affirm that there is no consensus on the core topics of information science, as these evolve and change dynamically in relation to other disciplines, and with the dominant social and cultural contexts. With regard to the research methods and techniques, it can be stated that they have mostly been adopted from social sciences, with the addition of numerical methods, especially in the fields of bibliometric and scientometric research.

0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 4272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=4272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 4272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4272)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the early 1990s, much of the enthusiasm for the use of electronic media to enhance scholarly communication focused an electronic journals, especially electronic-only, (pure) e journals (see for example, Peek & Newby's [1996] anthology). Much of the systematic research an the use of electronic media to enhance scholarly communication also focused an electronic journals. However, by the late 1990s, numerous scientific publishers had transformed their paper journals (p journals) into paper and electronic journals (p-e journals) and sold them via subscription models that did not provide the significant costs savings, speed of access, or breadth of audience that pure e -journal advocates had expected (Okerson, 1996). In 2001, a group of senior life scientists led a campaign to have publishers make their journals freely available online six months after publication (Russo, 2001). The campaign leaders, using the name "Public Library of Science," asked scientists to boycott journals that did not comply with these demands for open access. Although the proposal was discussed in scientific magazines and conferences, it apparently did not persuade any journal publishers to comply (Young, 2002). Most productive scientists, who work for major universities and research institutes

0.03447506 = product of:
  0.103425175 = sum of:
    0.103425175 = sum of:
      0.05630404 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05630404 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
      0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047121134 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The object of this literature review is to provide a historical perspective of R and D work in the area of Knowledge Organization (KO). This overview/summarization will provide information on major areas of KO. Journal articles published in core areas of KO: (Classification, Indexing, Thesauri and Taxonomies, Internet and Subject approach to information in the electronic era and Ontologies will be predominantly covered in this literature review. Coverage in this overview may not be completely exhaustive, but it succinctly showcases major developments in the area of KO. This review is a good source of additional reading material on KO apart from prescribed reading material on KO

Date

22. 6.2015 16:13:38

0.033914097 = product of:
  0.10174229 = sum of:
    0.10174229 = product of:
      0.20348458 = sum of:
        0.20348458 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20348458 = score(doc=5540,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            1.0699216 = fieldWeight in 5540, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

State of the art review of UK developments in indexing and abstracting druing the period 1986-1990 covering: bibliographies of indexing and abstracting; British standards (including the revised British Standard on indexing, BS 3700); Wheatley Medal and Carey Award; a list of indexes published during this period; the role of the computer and automatic indexing; hypermedia; PRECIS; POPSI, relational indexing; thesauri; education and training; the indexing process, newspaper indexing; fiction indexes; the indexing profession; and a review of abstracting and indexing services

0.029886894 = product of:
  0.08966068 = sum of:
    0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08966068 = score(doc=1980,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.

0.02144916 = product of:
  0.064347476 = sum of:
    0.064347476 = product of:
      0.12869495 = sum of:
        0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12869495 = score(doc=727,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 727, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=727)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.02144916 = product of:
  0.064347476 = sum of:
    0.064347476 = product of:
      0.12869495 = sum of:
        0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12869495 = score(doc=1115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.02144916 = product of:
  0.064347476 = sum of:
    0.064347476 = product of:
      0.12869495 = sum of:
        0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12869495 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.02144916 = product of:
  0.064347476 = sum of:
    0.064347476 = product of:
      0.12869495 = sum of:
        0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12869495 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.021280928 = product of:
  0.06384278 = sum of:
    0.06384278 = product of:
      0.12768556 = sum of:
        0.12768556 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12768556 = score(doc=2215,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.67137045 = fieldWeight in 2215, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

State of the art review of methods available for accessing collections of digital images by means of manual and automatic indexing. Distinguishes between concept based indexing, in which images and the objects represented, are manually identified and described in terms of what they are and represent, and content based indexing, in which features of images (such as colours) are automatically identified and extracted. The main discussion is arranged in 6 sections: studies of image systems and their use; approaches to indexing images; image attributes; concept based indexing; content based indexing; and browsing in image retrieval. The performance of current image retrieval systems is largely untested and they still lack an extensive history and tradition of evaluation and standards for assessing performance. Concludes that there is a significant amount of research to be done before image retrieval systems can reach the state of development of text retrieval systems

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=3423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 3423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl. auch die entsprechende Rubrik in der 'International Classification and Indexing Bibliography'

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=5650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 5650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=2839,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)