Search (135 results, page 1 of 7)

0.08041592 = product of:
  0.16083184 = sum of:
    0.16083184 = sum of:
      0.12651755 = weight(_text_:class in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12651755 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05065357 = queryNorm
          0.44173864 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.034314297 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034314297 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05065357 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Effective patent management is essential for organizations to maintain their competitive advantage. The classification of patents is a critical part of patent management and industrial analysis. This study proposes a hybrid-patent-classification approach that combines a novel patent-network-based classification method with three conventional classification methods to analyze query patents and predict their classes. The novel patent network contains various types of nodes that represent different features extracted from patent documents. The nodes are connected based on the relationship metrics derived from the patent metadata. The proposed classification method predicts a query patent's class by analyzing all reachable nodes in the patent network and calculating their relevance to the query patent. It then classifies the query patent with a modified k-nearest neighbor classifier. To further improve the approach, we combine it with content-based, citation-based, and metadata-based classification methods to develop a hybrid-classification approach. We evaluate the performance of the hybrid approach on a test dataset of patent documents obtained from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and compare its performance with that of the three conventional methods. The results demonstrate that the proposed patent-network-based approach yields more accurate class predictions than the patent network-based approach.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:04:21

0.063258775 = product of:
  0.12651755 = sum of:
    0.12651755 = product of:
      0.2530351 = sum of:
        0.2530351 = weight(_text_:class in 1308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2530351 = score(doc=1308,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.8834773 = fieldWeight in 1308, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this brief communication, we show how a simple 3D bibliometric performance evaluation based on the zynergy-index (Prathap, 2013) can be simplified by the recently introduced 3-class approach (Ye & Leydesdorff, in press).

0.03795526 = product of:
  0.07591052 = sum of:
    0.07591052 = product of:
      0.15182105 = sum of:
        0.15182105 = weight(_text_:class in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15182105 = score(doc=2790,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.53008634 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Traces the origin of the term librametry. Shows how librametry has helped Ranganathan to develop the staff formula for different libraries, and it can help in decision making relating to the establishment of rural and branch libraries; dormitory and service libraries. His maintenance of statistics of various library activities showed the growth pattern of library collection, use of the collection by users, busy and very busy hours in the circulations and reference sections, and so on. He also developed a method for optimal procurement of books for every department in the university. Ranganathan also showed statistically that on average Colon class numbers are shorter than DC class numbers. With the passage of time bibliometrics overshadowed librametrics. Ranganathan did not define librametrics, neither he isolated its components. The lacunae have been filled in this article. It has also been shown that a substantial part of librametrics is occupied by bibliometrics.

0.031629387 = product of:
  0.063258775 = sum of:
    0.063258775 = product of:
      0.12651755 = sum of:
        0.12651755 = weight(_text_:class in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12651755 = score(doc=2846,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.44173864 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.

0.031629387 = product of:
  0.063258775 = sum of:
    0.063258775 = product of:
      0.12651755 = sum of:
        0.12651755 = weight(_text_:class in 3171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12651755 = score(doc=3171,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.44173864 = fieldWeight in 3171, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study proposes a new visualization method and index for collection evaluation. Specifically, it develops a network-based mapping technique and a user-focused Hirsch index (user-side h-index) given the lack of previous studies on collection evaluation methods that have used the h-index. A user-side h-index is developed and compared with previous indices (use factor, difference of percentages, collection-side h-index) that represent the strengths of the subject classes of a library collection. The mapping procedure includes the subject-usage profiling of 63 subject classes and collection-usage map generations through the pathfinder network algorithm. Cluster analyses are then conducted upon the pathfinder network to generate 5 large and 14 small clusters. The nodes represent the strengths of the subject-class usages reflected by the user-side h-index. The user-side h-index was found to have advantages (e.g., better demonstrating the real utility of each subject class) over the other indices. It also can more clearly distinguish the strengths between the subject classes than can collection-side h-index. These results may help to identify actual usage and strengths of subject classes in library collections through visualized maps. This may be a useful rationale for the establishment of the collection-development plan.

0.031629387 = product of:
  0.063258775 = sum of:
    0.063258775 = product of:
      0.12651755 = sum of:
        0.12651755 = weight(_text_:class in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12651755 = score(doc=294,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.44173864 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.031629387 = product of:
  0.063258775 = sum of:
    0.063258775 = product of:
      0.12651755 = sum of:
        0.12651755 = weight(_text_:class in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12651755 = score(doc=3229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.44173864 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The evaluation of scientific research is crucial for both the academic community and society as a whole. Numerous bibliometric indices have been proposed for the ranking of research performance, mainly on an ad hoc basis. We introduce the novel class of Scientific Research Measures (SRMs) to rank scientists' research performance and provide a rigorous theoretical foundation for these measures. In contrast to many bibliometric indices, SRMs take into account the whole citation curve of the scientist, offer appealing structural properties, allow a finer ranking of scientists, correspond to specific features of different disciplines, research areas and seniorities, and include several bibliometric indices as special cases. Thus SRMs result in more accurate rankings than ad hoc bibliometric indices. We also introduce the further general class of Dual SRMs that reflect the "value" of journals and permit the ranking of research institutions based on theoretically sound criteria, which has been a central theme in the scientific community over recent decades. An empirical application to the citation curves of 173 finance scholars shows that SRMs can be easily calibrated to actual citation curves and generate different authors' rankings than those produced by seven traditional bibliometric indices.

0.031311493 = product of:
  0.06262299 = sum of:
    0.06262299 = product of:
      0.12524597 = sum of:
        0.12524597 = weight(_text_:class in 989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12524597 = score(doc=989,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.43729892 = fieldWeight in 989, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=989)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper continues the attempt of Part I to develop a coherent family of measures of influence between classes of documents, for example, language or nationality classes, as indicated by citation choice. In this paper we focus on situations in which there is some ambiguity as to how to assign items to a class. For simplicity, we change our focus from citations to co-authorship patterns, restricting most of our discussion to papers with two authors. Like the earlier paper, we propose very simple models of the citation decision, and base our measures on the parameters that appear in the model.

0.031311493 = product of:
  0.06262299 = sum of:
    0.06262299 = product of:
      0.12524597 = sum of:
        0.12524597 = weight(_text_:class in 1061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12524597 = score(doc=1061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.43729892 = fieldWeight in 1061, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article is concerned with a class of informetric distribution, a family of skew distributions found to describe a wide range of phenomena both within or outside of information sciences and referred to as being of Zipf-type. A generalization of Zipf distribution (a size-frequency form of the Zipf's law), named the generalized Zipf distribution, is introduced. Two main characterizations of the generalized Zipf distribution are obtained based on the proportionate hazard rate and truncated moments. Finally, some asymptotic properties of the generalized Zipf distribution are investigated.

0.027451439 = product of:
  0.054902878 = sum of:
    0.054902878 = product of:
      0.109805755 = sum of:
        0.109805755 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109805755 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.027451439 = product of:
  0.054902878 = sum of:
    0.054902878 = product of:
      0.109805755 = sum of:
        0.109805755 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109805755 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = 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

0.027451439 = product of:
  0.054902878 = sum of:
    0.054902878 = product of:
      0.109805755 = sum of:
        0.109805755 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109805755 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.026838424 = product of:
  0.053676847 = sum of:
    0.053676847 = product of:
      0.107353695 = sum of:
        0.107353695 = weight(_text_:class in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107353695 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.37482765 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Much effort has been done to develop more objective quantitative methods to analyze and integrate survey information for understanding research trends and research structures. Co-word analysis is one class of techniques that exploits the use of co-occurences of items in written information. However, there are some bottlenecks in using statistical methods to produce mappings of reduced information in a comfortable manner. On one hand, often used statistical software for PCs has restrictions for the amount for calculable data; on the other hand, the results of the mufltidimensional scaling routines are not quite satisfying. Therefore, this article introduces a new iteration model for the calculation of co-word maps that eases the problem. The iteration model is for positioning the words in the two-dimensional plane due to their connections to each other, and its consists of a quick and stabile algorithm that has been implemented with software for personal computers. A graphic module represents the data in well-known 'technology maps'

0.026838424 = product of:
  0.053676847 = sum of:
    0.053676847 = product of:
      0.107353695 = sum of:
        0.107353695 = weight(_text_:class in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107353695 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.37482765 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.

0.026838424 = product of:
  0.053676847 = sum of:
    0.053676847 = product of:
      0.107353695 = sum of:
        0.107353695 = weight(_text_:class in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107353695 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.37482765 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using data compiled for the SCImago Institutions Ranking, we look at whether the subject area type an institution (university or research-focused institution) belongs to (in terms of the fields researched) has an influence on its ranking position. We used latent class analysis to categorize institutions based on their publications in certain subject areas. Even though this categorization does not relate directly to scientific performance, our results show that it exercises an important influence on the outcome of a performance measurement: Certain subject area types of institutions have an advantage in the ranking positions when compared with others. This advantage manifests itself not only when performance is measured with an indicator that is not field-normalized but also for indicators that are field-normalized.

0.026838424 = product of:
  0.053676847 = sum of:
    0.053676847 = product of:
      0.107353695 = sum of:
        0.107353695 = weight(_text_:class in 1533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107353695 = score(doc=1533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.37482765 = fieldWeight in 1533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study, we discover Russian "centers of excellence" and explore patterns of their collaboration with each other and with foreign partners. Highly cited papers serve as a proxy for "excellence" and coauthored papers as a measure of collaborative efforts. We find that currently research institutes (of the Russian Academy of Sciences as well as others) remain the key players despite recent government initiatives to stimulate university science. The contribution of the commercial sector to high-impact research is negligible. More than 90% of Russian highly cited papers involve international collaboration, and Russian institutions often do not play a dominant role. Partnership with U.S., German, U.K., and French scientists increases markedly the probability of a Russian paper becoming highly cited. Patterns of national ("intranational") collaboration in world-class research differ significantly across different types of organizations; the strongest ties are between three nuclear/particle physics centers. Finally, we draw a coauthorship map to visualize collaboration between Russian centers of excellence.

0.024263872 = product of:
  0.048527744 = sum of:
    0.048527744 = product of:
      0.09705549 = sum of:
        0.09705549 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09705549 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.024263872 = product of:
  0.048527744 = sum of:
    0.048527744 = product of:
      0.09705549 = sum of:
        0.09705549 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09705549 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = 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

0.024020009 = product of:
  0.048040017 = sum of:
    0.048040017 = product of:
      0.096080035 = sum of:
        0.096080035 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096080035 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

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

0.024020009 = product of:
  0.048040017 = sum of:
    0.048040017 = product of:
      0.096080035 = sum of:
        0.096080035 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096080035 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29