Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.09153552 = product of:
  0.13730328 = sum of:
    0.11678971 = weight(_text_:interest in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11678971 = score(doc=4345,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.46577424 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.02051357 = product of:
      0.04102714 = sum of:
        0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04102714 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The microblogging site Twitter generates a constant stream of communication, some of which concerns events of general interest. An analysis of Twitter may, therefore, give insights into why particular events resonate with the population. This article reports a study of a month of English Twitter posts, assessing whether popular events are typically associated with increases in sentiment strength, as seems intuitively likely. Using the top 30 events, determined by a measure of relative increase in (general) term usage, the results give strong evidence that popular events are normally associated with increases in negative sentiment strength and some evidence that peaks of interest in events have stronger positive sentiment than the time before the peak. It seems that many positive events, such as the Oscars, are capable of generating increased negative sentiment in reaction to them. Nevertheless, the surprisingly small average change in sentiment associated with popular events (typically 1% and only 6% for Tiger Woods' confessions) is consistent with events affording posters opportunities to satisfy pre-existing personal goals more often than eliciting instinctive reactions.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.04587933 = product of:
  0.13763799 = sum of:
    0.13763799 = weight(_text_:interest in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13763799 = score(doc=375,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.54892015 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The worldwide span of the microblogging service Twitter provides an opportunity to make international comparisons of trending topics of interest, such as news stories. Previous international comparisons of news interests have tended to use surveys and may bypass topics not well covered in the mainstream media. This study uses 9 months of English-language Tweets from the United Kingdom, United States, India, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Based upon the top 50 trending keywords in each country from the 0.5 billion Tweets collected, festivals or religious events are the most common, followed by media events, politics, human interest, and sports. U.S. trending topics have the most interest in the other countries and Indian trending topics the least. Conversely, India is the most interested in other countries' trending topics and the United States the least. This gives evidence of an international hierarchy of perceived importance or relevance with some issues, such as the international interest in U.S. Thanksgiving celebrations, apparently not being directly driven by the media. This hierarchy echoes, and may be caused by, similar news coverage trends. Although the current imbalanced international news coverage does not seem to be out of step with public news interests, the political implication is that the Twitter-using public reflects, and hence seems to implicitly accept, international imbalances in news media agenda setting rather than combating them. This is an issue for those believing that these imbalances make the media too powerful.

0.038929906 = product of:
  0.11678971 = sum of:
    0.11678971 = weight(_text_:interest in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11678971 = score(doc=4474,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.46577424 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There has been much recent interest in extracting information from collections of Web links. One tool that has been used is Ingwersen's Web impact factor. It has been demonstrated that several versions of this metric can produce results that correlate with research ratings of British universities showing that, despite being a measure of a purely Internet phenomenon, the results are susceptible to a wider interpretation. This paper addresses the question of which is the best possible domain to count backlinks from, if research is the focus of interest. WIFs for British universities calculated from several different source domains are compared, primarily the .edu, .ac.uk and .uk domains, and the entire Web. The results show that all four areas produce WIFs that correlate strongly with research ratings, but that none produce incontestably superior figures. It was also found that the WIF was less able to differentiate in more homogeneous subsets of universities, although positive results are still possible.

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Commercial search engines are now playing an increasingly important role in Web information dissemination and access. Of particular interest to business and national governments is whether the big engines have coverage biased towards the US or other countries. In our study we tested for national biases in three major search engines and found significant differences in their coverage of commercial Web sites. The US sites were much better covered than the others in the study: sites from China, Taiwan and Singapore. We then examined the possible technical causes of the differences and found that the language of a site does not affect its coverage by search engines. However, the visibility of a site, measured by the number of links to it, affects its chance to be covered by search engines. We conclude that the coverage bias does exist but this is due not to deliberate choices of the search engines but occurs as a natural result of cumulative advantage effects of US sites on the Web. Nevertheless, the bias remains a cause for international concern.

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Word usage is of interest to linguists for its own sake as well as to social scientists and others who seek to track the spread of ideas, for example, in public debates over political decisions. The historical evolution of language can be analyzed with the tools of corpus linguistics through evolving corpora and the Web. But word usage statistics can only be gathered for known words. In this article, techniques are described and tested for identifying new words from the Web, focusing on the case when the words are related to a topic and have a hybrid form with a common sequence of letters. The results highlight the need to employ a combination of search techniques and show the wide potential of hybrid word family investigations in linguistics and social science.

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A feature of modern democracies is public mistrust of scientists and the politicization of science policy, e.g., concerning stem cell research and genetically modified food. While the extent of this mistrust is debatable, its political influence is tangible. Hence, science policy researchers and science policy makers need early warning of issues that resonate with a wide public so that they can make timely and informed decisions. In this article, a semi-automatic method for identifying significant public science-related concerns from a corpus of Internet-based RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds is described and shown to be an improvement on a previous similar system because of the introduction of feedbased aggregation. In addition, both the RSS corpus and the concept of public science-related fears are deconstructed, revealing hidden complexity. This article also provides evidence that genetically modified organisms and stem cell research were the two major policyrelevant science concern issues, although mobile phone radiation and software security also generated significant interest.

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book-based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender-based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male-authored chick-lit.

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=2123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 2123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2123)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The quality and impact of academic Web sites is of interest to many audiences, including the scholars who use them and Web educators who need to identify best practice. Several large-scale European Union research projects have been funded to build new indicators for online scientific activity, reflecting recognition of the importance of the Web for scholarly communication. In this paper we address the key question of whether higher rated scholars produce higher impact Web sites, using the United Kingdom as a case study and measuring scholars' quality in terms of university-wide average research ratings. Methodological issues concerning the measurement of the online impact are discussed, leading to the adoption of counts of links to a university's constituent single domain Web sites from an aggregated counting metric. The findings suggest that universities with higher rated scholars produce significantly more Web content but with a similar average online impact. Higher rated scholars therefore attract more total links from their peers, but only by being more prolific, refuting earlier suggestions. It can be surmised that general Web publications are very different from scholarly journal articles and conference papers, for which scholarly quality does associate with citation impact. This has important implications for the construction of new Web indicators, for example that online impact should not be used to assess the quality of small groups of scholars, even within a single discipline.

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=697)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Those seeking information from the Internet often start from a search engine, using either its organised directory structure or its text query facility. In response to the difficulty in identifying the most relevant pages for some information needs, many search engines offer Boolean text matching and some, including Google, AltaVista and HotBot, offer the facility to integrate additional information into a more advanced request. Amongst web users, however, it is known that the employment of complex enquiries is far from universal, with very short queries being the norm. It is demonstrated that the gap between the provision of advanced search facilities and their use can be bridged, for specific information needs, by the construction of a simple interface in the form of a website that automatically formulates the necessary requests. It is argued that this kind of resource, perhaps employing additional knowledge domain specific information, is one that could be useful for websites or portals of common interest groups. The approach is illustrated by a website that enables a user to search the individual websites of university level institutions in European Union associated countries.

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.

0.020822216 = product of:
  0.062466644 = sum of:
    0.062466644 = sum of:
      0.028277358 = weight(_text_:classification in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028277358 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034189284 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.009117142 = product of:
  0.027351426 = sum of:
    0.027351426 = product of:
      0.054702852 = sum of:
        0.054702852 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054702852 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.008058492 = product of:
  0.024175474 = sum of:
    0.024175474 = product of:
      0.04835095 = sum of:
        0.04835095 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04835095 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.006837857 = product of:
  0.02051357 = sum of:
    0.02051357 = product of:
      0.04102714 = sum of:
        0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04102714 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.006837857 = product of:
  0.02051357 = sum of:
    0.02051357 = product of:
      0.04102714 = sum of:
        0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04102714 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.006837857 = product of:
  0.02051357 = sum of:
    0.02051357 = product of:
      0.04102714 = sum of:
        0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04102714 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.0065980507 = product of:
  0.019794151 = sum of:
    0.019794151 = product of:
      0.039588302 = sum of:
        0.039588302 = weight(_text_:classification in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039588302 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0056982143 = product of:
  0.017094642 = sum of:
    0.017094642 = product of:
      0.034189284 = sum of:
        0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034189284 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

0.0056982143 = product of:
  0.017094642 = sum of:
    0.017094642 = product of:
      0.034189284 = sum of:
        0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034189284 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22