Search (57 results, page 1 of 3)

0.19916467 = product of:
  0.298747 = sum of:
    0.2669664 = weight(_text_:title in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2669664 = score(doc=4721,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.97304213 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
    0.031780593 = product of:
      0.063561186 = sum of:
        0.063561186 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063561186 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In order to compare the value of subject descriptors and title keywords as entries to subject searches, two studies were carried out. Both studies concentrated on monographs in the humanities and social sciences, held by the online public access catalogue of the National Library of the Netherlands. In the first study, a comparison was made by subject librarians between the subject descriptors and the title keywords of 475 records. They could express their opinion on a scale from 1 (descriptor is exactly or almost the same as word in title) to 7 (descriptor does not appear in title at all). It was concluded that 37 per cent of the records are considerably enhanced by a subject descriptor, and 49 per cent slightly or considerably enhanced. In the second study, subject librarians performed subject searches using title keywords and subject descriptors on the same topic. The relative recall amounted to 48 per cent and 86 per cent respectively. Failure analysis revealed the reasons why so many records that were found by subject descriptors were not found by title keywords. First, although completely meaningless titles hardly ever appear, the title of a publication does not always offer sufficient clues for title keyword searching. In those cases, descriptors may enhance the record of a publication. A second and even more important task of subject descriptors is controlling the vocabulary. Many relevant titles cannot be retrieved by title keyword searching because of the wide diversity of ways of expressing a topic. Descriptors take away the burden of vocabulary control from the user.

0.18724996 = product of:
  0.28087494 = sum of:
    0.2363821 = weight(_text_:title in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2363821 = score(doc=1446,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.86156815 = fieldWeight in 1446, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1446)
    0.04449283 = product of:
      0.08898566 = sum of:
        0.08898566 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898566 = score(doc=1446,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 1446, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1446)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A recent survey at the Royal Library in the Netherlands showed that subject headings are more efficient than title keywords for retrieval purposes. 475 Dutch publications were selected at random and assigned subject headings. The study showed that subject headings provided additional useful information in 56% of titles. Subsequent searching of the library's online catalogue showed that 88% of titles were retrieved via subject headings against 57% through title keywords. Further precision may be achieved with the help of indexing staff, but at considerable cost

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: A good title has no need of subject headings, or does it?: a comparative study of title keywords against subject headings

0.15204713 = product of:
  0.22807069 = sum of:
    0.20471291 = weight(_text_:title in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20471291 = score(doc=5001,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.74613994 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.023357773 = product of:
      0.046715546 = sum of:
        0.046715546 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046715546 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.090050325 = product of:
  0.27015096 = sum of:
    0.27015096 = weight(_text_:title in 4296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27015096 = score(doc=4296,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.9846493 = fieldWeight in 4296, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4296)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This experiment searches an online library catalog employing author surnames, plus title words of books in citations of 8 scholarly works whose authors selected the title words used as being recallable. Searches comprising surname together with two recallable title words, or one if only one was available, yielded a single-screen miniature catalog (minicat) 99.0% of the time

0.08271651 = product of:
  0.24814951 = sum of:
    0.24814951 = weight(_text_:title in 3351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24814951 = score(doc=3351,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.90445817 = fieldWeight in 3351, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3351)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Investigates the extent to which title keywords convey subject content and compares the relative effectiveness of searching title keywords using 2 search strategies to examine whether adjacency operators in title keyword searches are effective in improving recall and precision of online searching. Title keywords from a random sample of titles in the field of economics were searched on FirstSearch, using the WorldCat database, which is equivalent in coverage to the OCLC OLUC, with and without adjacency of the keywords specified. The LCSH of the items retrieved were compared with the sample title subject headings to determine the degree of match or relevance and the values for precision and recall were calculated. Results indicated that, when keywords were discipline specific, adjacency operators improved precision with little degradation of recall. Systems that allow positional operators or rank output by proximity of terms may increase search success

0.07879403 = product of:
  0.2363821 = sum of:
    0.2363821 = weight(_text_:title in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2363821 = score(doc=3061,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.86156815 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of an experiment using a simulated title pages, author surnames, and title words, one-third of which were selected by each of the 3 authors, to determine the frequency of one-screen displays when used to search for known items in an implied Boolean retrieval system. Searches comprising surname plus one significant title word produced one-screen displays 78% of time; surname plus 2 words 97% of the time; and surname plus 3 words 98,5%. Three quarters of the significant words were nouns

0.07879403 = product of:
  0.2363821 = sum of:
    0.2363821 = weight(_text_:title in 3175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2363821 = score(doc=3175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.86156815 = fieldWeight in 3175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3175)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Title words - subject headings: a comparative research

0.06753775 = product of:
  0.20261323 = sum of:
    0.20261323 = weight(_text_:title in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20261323 = score(doc=1202,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.738487 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on a comparison of the postcoordinate retrieval effectiveness of two indexing languages: LCSH and PRECIS. The effect of augmenting each with title words was also studies. The database for the study was over 15.000 UK MARC records. Users returned 5.326 relevant judgements for citations retrieved for 61 SDI profiles, representing a wide variety of subjects. Results are reported in terms of precision and relative recall. Pure/applied sciences data and social science data were analyzed separately. Cochran's significance tests for ratios were used to interpret the findings. Recall emerged as the more important measure discriminating the behavior of the two languages. Addition of title words was found to improve recall of both indexing languages significantly. A direct relationship was observed between recall and exhaustivity. For the social sciences searches, recalls from PRECIS alone and from PRECIS with title words were significantly higher than those from LCSH alone and from LCSH with title words, respectively. Corresponding comparisons for the pure/applied sciences searches revealed no significant differences

0.055715796 = product of:
  0.16714738 = sum of:
    0.16714738 = weight(_text_:title in 6622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16714738 = score(doc=6622,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.6092207 = fieldWeight in 6622, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6622)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Investigates how linkage environments in a hypertext based bibliographic retrieval system affect retrieval performance for novice and experienced searchers, 2 systems, 1 with inter record linkages to authors and descriptors and 1 that also included title and abstract keywords, were tested. No significant differences in retrieval performance and system usage were found for most search tests. The enhanced system did provide better performance where title and abstract keywords provided the most direct access to relevant records. The findings have implications for the design of bilbiographic information retrieval systems using hypertext linkages

0.039397016 = product of:
  0.11819105 = sum of:
    0.11819105 = weight(_text_:title in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11819105 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.43078408 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An analysis of transaction logs from an academic library online catalog describes instances in which users have tried both controlled and uncontrolled (title keyword) vocabulary subject access during the same search session. Eight hypotheses were tested. Over 6.6% of all dial access search sessions contained both methods of subject access. Over 58% of the isolated sessions began with an uncontrolled vocabulary attempt. Over 76% contained only one vocabulary shift. On average, user persistence was greater during controlled vocabulary search logs, but search output was greater during uncontrolled vocabulary search logs. Several recommendations regarding catalog design and instruction are made.

0.039397016 = product of:
  0.11819105 = sum of:
    0.11819105 = weight(_text_:title in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11819105 = score(doc=2065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.43078408 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.039397016 = product of:
  0.11819105 = sum of:
    0.11819105 = weight(_text_:title in 1174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11819105 = score(doc=1174,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.43078408 = fieldWeight in 1174, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1174)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The test ran between Nov 95-Aug 96 in Cologne Fachhochschule fur Bibliothekswesen (College of Librarianship).The test basis was a database of 190,000 book titles published between 1990-95. MILOS II mechanized indexing methods proved helpful in avoiding or reducing numbers of unsatisfied/no result retrieval searches. Retrieval from mechanised indexing is 3 times more successful than from title keyword data. MILOS II also used a standardized semantic vocabulary. Mechanised indexing demands high quality software and output data

0.033768874 = product of:
  0.10130662 = sum of:
    0.10130662 = weight(_text_:title in 3001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10130662 = score(doc=3001,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3692435 = fieldWeight in 3001, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3001)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As retrieval system become more oriented towards end-users, there is an increasing need for improved methods to evaluate their effectiveness. We performed a task-oriented assessment of 2 MEDLINE searching systems, one which promotes traditional Boolean searching on human-indexed thesaurus terms and the other natural language searching on words in the title, abstracts and indexing terms. Medical students were randomized to one of the 2 systems and given clinical questions to answer. The students were able to use each system successfully, with no significant differences in questions correctly answered, time taken, relevant articles retrieved, or user satisfaction between the systems. This approach to evaluation was successful in measuring effectiveness of system use and demonstrates that both types of systems can be used equally well with minimal training

0.033768874 = product of:
  0.10130662 = sum of:
    0.10130662 = weight(_text_:title in 3867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10130662 = score(doc=3867,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3692435 = fieldWeight in 3867, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3867)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There is a need for improved methods to evaluate the effectiveness of end user information retrieval systems. Performs a task oriented assessment of 2 MEDLINE searching systems, one which promotes Boolean searching on human indexed thesaurus terms and the other natural language searching on words in the title, abstract, and indexing terms. Each was used by medical students to answer clinical questions. Students were able to use each system successfully, with no significant differences in questions correctly answered, time taken, relevant articles retrieved, or user satisfaction between the systems. This approach to evaluation was successful in measuring effectiveness of system use and demonstrates that both types of systems can be used equally well with minimal training

0.033768874 = product of:
  0.10130662 = sum of:
    0.10130662 = weight(_text_:title in 6640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10130662 = score(doc=6640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3692435 = fieldWeight in 6640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6640)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to compare the efficiency of the computerized searching of LISA Plus and Currents Research in Library and Information Science (CRLIS) with manual searching of the printed version of LISA. The study focused on articles covering the library and information science profession (LIS), published in Asian library and information science periodicals. The first stage was to identify Asian LIS periodicals using the Ulrich's Plus CD-ROM database. Computerized searching involved 2 methods; straightforward creation of sets for every periodical title; and browsing of brief citations of abstracts of all articles identified as being on the library profession published in the 1993 LISA. The manual searching involved browsing section 2.0 profession for all 11 issues of the printed LISA. Examines the reasons why computeroized searches took more time and retrieved less number of items. Suggests measures whereby the efficiency of computerized searches can be increased and concludes that to ensure comprehensive recall of relevant items, a combination of manual and computerized search is indispensible

0.029661886 = product of:
  0.08898566 = sum of:
    0.08898566 = product of:
      0.17797132 = sum of:
        0.17797132 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 6742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17797132 = score(doc=6742,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.74757946 = fieldWeight in 6742, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to examine the performance of online catalogue searches involving personal names and to recommend improvements to the basic system approach to soliciting user queries and searching for them. The research questions addressed in the study wre: how online systems can chose searching approaches on their own that are likely to produce useful retrieval; how online systems solicit queries from users; and how users respond to an experimental online catalogue that prompts them for the different elements of their personal name queries. Improvements include: the implementation of a new design for online catalogue searching that features search trees; new methods for soliciting user queries bearing personal names; and enlisting the participation of online catalogue users in the evaluation of system prompts, instructions, and messages that request input from them

0.028140724 = product of:
  0.08442217 = sum of:
    0.08442217 = weight(_text_:title in 4532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08442217 = score(doc=4532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3077029 = fieldWeight in 4532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4532)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This technical note describes straightforward techniques for document indexing and retrieval that have been solidly established through extensive testing and are easy to apply. They are useful for many different types of text material, are viable for very large files, and have the advantage that they do not require special skills or training for searching, but are easy for end users. The document and text retrieval methods described here have a sound theoretical basis, are well established by extensive testing, and the ideas involved are now implemented in some commercial retrieval systems. Testing in the last few years has, in particular, shown that the methods presented here work very well with full texts, not only title and abstracts, and with large files of texts containing three quarters of a million documents. These tests, the TREC Tests (see Harman 1993 - 1997; IP&M 1995), have been rigorous comparative evaluations involving many different approaches to information retrieval. These techniques depend an the use of simple terms for indexing both request and document texts; an term weighting exploiting statistical information about term occurrences; an scoring for request-document matching, using these weights, to obtain a ranked search output; and an relevance feedback to modify request weights or term sets in iterative searching. The normal implementation is via an inverted file organisation using a term list with linked document identifiers, plus counting data, and pointers to the actual texts. The user's request can be a word list, phrases, sentences or extended text.

0.028140724 = product of:
  0.08442217 = sum of:
    0.08442217 = weight(_text_:title in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08442217 = score(doc=1215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3077029 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study investigates the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different environments through controlled experiments. Three test collections were built. The first collection tests the impact of tags on retrieval performance when only the title and abstract are available (the abstract environment). The second tests the impact of tags when the full text is available (the full-text environment). The third compares the retrieval effectiveness of tags and author keywords in the abstract environment. In addition, both single-word queries and phrase queries are tested to understand the impact of different query types. Our findings suggest that including tags and author keywords in indexes can enhance recall but may improve or worsen average precision depending on retrieval environments and query types. Indexing tags and author keywords for searching using phrase queries in the abstract environment showed improved average precision, whereas indexing tags for searching using single-word queries in the full-text environment led to a significant drop in average precision. The comparison between tags and author keywords in the abstract environment indicates that they have comparable impact on average precision, but author keywords are more advantageous in enhancing recall. The findings from this study provide useful implications for designing retrieval systems that incorporate tags and author keywords.

0.015571849 = product of:
  0.046715546 = sum of:
    0.046715546 = product of:
      0.09343109 = sum of:
        0.09343109 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09343109 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, 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=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.015571849 = product of:
  0.046715546 = sum of:
    0.046715546 = product of:
      0.09343109 = sum of:
        0.09343109 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09343109 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, 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=6418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58