Search (2203 results, page 1 of 111)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.10 
    0.0952493 = sum of:
  0.07584065 = product of:
    0.22752194 = sum of:
      0.22752194 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22752194 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4048303 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047750622 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.019408649 = product of:
    0.038817298 = sum of:
      0.038817298 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038817298 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16721454 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047750622 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.
    Date
    8. 1.2013 10:22:32
  2. Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: Facing the volatility of tweets in altmetric research (2022) 0.06 
    0.063941434 = product of:
  0.12788287 = sum of:
    0.12788287 = product of:
      0.25576574 = sum of:
        0.25576574 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25576574 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.59588134 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The data re-collection for tweets from data snapshots is a common methodological step in Twitter-based research. Understanding better the volatility of tweets over time is important for validating the reliability of metrics based on Twitter data. We tracked a set of 37,918 original scholarly tweets mentioning COVID-19-related research daily for 56 days and captured the reasons for the changes in their availability over time. Results show that the proportion of unavailable tweets increased from 1.6 to 2.6% in the time window observed. Of the 1,323 tweets that became unavailable at some point in the period observed, 30.5% became available again afterwards. "Revived" tweets resulted mainly from the unprotecting, reactivating, or unsuspending of users' accounts. Our findings highlight the importance of noting this dynamic nature of Twitter data in altmetric research and testify to the challenges that this poses for the retrieval, processing, and interpretation of Twitter data about scientific papers.
  3. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.06 
    0.06320054 = product of:
  0.12640108 = sum of:
    0.12640108 = product of:
      0.37920323 = sum of:
        0.37920323 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37920323 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4048303 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  4. Bizer, C.; Lehmann, J.; Kobilarov, G.; Auer, S.; Becker, C.; Cyganiak, R.; Hellmann, S.: DBpedia: a crystallization point for the Web of Data. (2009) 0.05 
    0.053284526 = product of:
  0.10656905 = sum of:
    0.10656905 = product of:
      0.2131381 = sum of:
        0.2131381 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 1643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2131381 = score(doc=1643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 1643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The DBpedia project is a community effort to extract structured information from Wikipedia and to make this information accessible on the Web. The resulting DBpedia knowledge base currently describes over 2.6 million entities. For each of these entities, DBpedia defines a globally unique identifier that can be dereferenced over the Web into a rich RDF description of the entity, including human-readable definitions in 30 languages, relationships to other resources, classifications in four concept hierarchies, various facts as well as data-level links to other Web data sources describing the entity. Over the last year, an increasing number of data publishers have begun to set data-level links to DBpedia resources, making DBpedia a central interlinking hub for the emerging Web of data. Currently, the Web of interlinked data sources around DBpedia provides approximately 4.7 billion pieces of information and covers domains suc as geographic information, people, companies, films, music, genes, drugs, books, and scientific publications. This article describes the extraction of the DBpedia knowledge base, the current status of interlinking DBpedia with other data sources on the Web, and gives an overview of applications that facilitate the Web of Data around DBpedia.
  5. Fensel, D.; Harmelen, F. van; Horrocks, I.: OIL and DAML+OIL : ontology languages for the Semantic Web (2004) 0.05 
    0.053284526 = product of:
  0.10656905 = sum of:
    0.10656905 = product of:
      0.2131381 = sum of:
        0.2131381 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 3244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2131381 = score(doc=3244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 3244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This chapter discusses OIL and DAML1OIL, currently the most prominent ontology languages for the Semantic Web. The chapter starts by discussing the pyramid of languages that underlie the architecture of the Semantic Web (XML, RDF, RDFS). In section 2.2, we briefly describe XML, RDF and RDFS. We then discuss in more detail OIL and DAML1OIL, the first proposals for languages at the ontology layer of the semantic pyramid. For OIL (and to some extent DAML1OIL) we discuss the general design motivations (Section 2.3), describe the constructions in the language (Section 2.4), and the various syntactic forms of these languages (Section 2.5). Section 2.6 discusses the layered architecture of the language, section 2.7 briefly mentions the formal semantics, section 2.8 discusses the transition from OIL to DAML+OIL, and section 2.9 concludes with our experience with the language to date and future development in the context of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This chapter is not intended to give full and formal definitions of either the syntax or the semantics of OIL or DAML1OIL. Such definitions are already available elsewhere: http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/ for OIL and http://www.w3.org/submission/2001/12/ for DAML1OIL.
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Subject (of documents) (2016) 0.05 
    0.053284526 = product of:
  0.10656905 = sum of:
    0.10656905 = product of:
      0.2131381 = sum of:
        0.2131381 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2131381 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical views: 2.1 Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903), 2.2 S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972), 2.3 Patrick Wilson (1927-2003), 2.4 "Content oriented" versus "request oriented" views, 2.5 Issues of subjectivity and objectivity, 2.6 The subject knowledge view, 2.7 Other views and definitions; 3. Related concepts: 3.1 Words versus concepts versus subjects, 3.2 Aboutness, 3.3 Topic, 3.4 Isness, 3.5 Ofness, 3.6 Theme.
  7. Thelwall, M.; Levitt, J.M.: National scientific performance evolution patterns : retrenchment, successful expansion, or overextension (2018) 0.05 
    0.053284526 = product of:
  0.10656905 = sum of:
    0.10656905 = product of:
      0.2131381 = sum of:
        0.2131381 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2131381 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    National governments would like to preside over an expanding and increasingly high-impact science system but are these two goals largely independent or closely linked? This article investigates the relationship between changes in the share of the world's scientific output and changes in relative citation impact for 2.6 million articles from 26 fields in the 25 countries with the most Scopus-indexed journal articles from 1996 to 2015. There is a negative correlation between expansion and relative citation impact, but their relationship varies. China, Spain, Australia, and Poland were successful overall across the 26 fields, expanding both their share of the world's output and its relative citation impact, whereas Japan, France, Sweden, and Israel had decreased shares and relative citation impact. In contrast, the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, and Denmark all enjoyed increased relative citation impact despite a declining share of publications. Finally, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey all experienced sustained expansion but a recent fall in relative citation impact. These results may partly reflect changes in the coverage of Scopus and the selection of fields.
  8. Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: ¬The stability of Twitter metrics : a study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications (2020) 0.05 
    0.053284526 = product of:
  0.10656905 = sum of:
    0.10656905 = product of:
      0.2131381 = sum of:
        0.2131381 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2131381 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigated the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions received by the 1,154 most tweeted scientific publications recorded by Altmetric.com up to October 2017. The results show that of the Twitter mentions for these highly tweeted publications, about 14.3% had become unavailable by April 2019. Deletion of tweets by users is the main reason for unavailability, followed by suspension and protection of Twitter user accounts. This study proposes two measures for describing the Twitter dissemination structures of publications: Degree of Originality (i.e., the proportion of original tweets received by an article) and Degree of Concentration (i.e., the degree to which retweets concentrate on a single original tweet). Twitter metrics of publications with relatively low Degree of Originality and relatively high Degree of Concentration were observed to be at greater risk of becoming unstable due to the potential disappearance of their Twitter mentions. In light of these results, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to the potential risk of unstable Twitter counts, and the significance of identifying the different Twitter dissemination structures when studying the Twitter metrics of scientific publications.
  9. Jahn, N.; Matthias, L.; Laakso, M.: Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher-provided metadata : an article-level study of Elsevier (2022) 0.05 
    0.053284526 = product of:
  0.10656905 = sum of:
    0.10656905 = product of:
      0.2131381 = sum of:
        0.2131381 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2131381 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    With the growth of open access (OA), the financial flows in scholarly journal publishing have become increasingly complex, but comprehensive data on and transparency of these flows are still lacking. The opacity is especially concerning for hybrid OA, where subscription-based journals publish individual articles as OA if an optional fee is paid. This study addresses the lack of transparency by leveraging Elsevier article metadata and provides the first publisher-level study of hybrid OA uptake and invoicing. Our results show that Elsevier's hybrid OA uptake has grown steadily but slowly from 2015 to 2019, doubling the number of hybrid OA articles published per year and increasing the share of OA articles in Elsevier's hybrid journals from 2.6 to 3.7% of all articles. Further, we find that most hybrid OA articles were invoiced directly to authors, followed by articles invoiced through agreements with research funders, institutions, or consortia, with only a few funding bodies driving hybrid OA uptake. As such, our findings point to the role of publishing agreements and OA policies in hybrid OA publishing. Our results further demonstrate the value of publisher-provided metadata to improve the transparency in scholarly publishing.
  10. Popper, K.R.: Three worlds : the Tanner lecture on human values. Deliverd at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978 (1978) 0.05 
    0.05056043 = product of:
  0.10112086 = sum of:
    0.10112086 = product of:
      0.30336258 = sum of:
        0.30336258 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30336258 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4048303 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H
  11. Vetere, G.; Lenzerini, M.: Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures (2005) 0.04 
    0.04424038 = product of:
  0.08848076 = sum of:
    0.08848076 = product of:
      0.26544228 = sum of:
        0.26544228 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26544228 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4048303 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.
  12. Spink, A.; Jansen, B.J.; Blakely, C.; Koshman, S.: ¬A study of results overlap and uniqueness among major Web search engines (2006) 0.04 
    0.04262762 = product of:
  0.08525524 = sum of:
    0.08525524 = product of:
      0.17051049 = sum of:
        0.17051049 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17051049 = score(doc=993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.39725423 = fieldWeight in 993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The performance and capabilities of Web search engines is an important and significant area of research. Millions of people world wide use Web search engines very day. This paper reports the results of a major study examining the overlap among results retrieved by multiple Web search engines for a large set of more than 10,000 queries. Previous smaller studies have discussed a lack of overlap in results returned by Web search engines for the same queries. The goal of the current study was to conduct a large-scale study to measure the overlap of search results on the first result page (both non-sponsored and sponsored) across the four most popular Web search engines, at specific points in time using a large number of queries. The Web search engines included in the study were MSN Search, Google, Yahoo! and Ask Jeeves. Our study then compares these results with the first page results retrieved for the same queries by the metasearch engine Dogpile.com. Two sets of randomly selected user-entered queries, one set was 10,316 queries and the other 12,570 queries, from Infospace's Dogpile.com search engine (the first set was from Dogpile, the second was from across the Infospace Network of search properties were submitted to the four single Web search engines). Findings show that the percent of total results unique to only one of the four Web search engines was 84.9%, shared by two of the three Web search engines was 11.4%, shared by three of the Web search engines was 2.6%, and shared by all four Web search engines was 1.1%. This small degree of overlap shows the significant difference in the way major Web search engines retrieve and rank results in response to given queries. Results point to the value of metasearch engines in Web retrieval to overcome the biases of individual search engines.
  13. Mas, S.; Marleau, Y.: Proposition of a faceted classification model to support corporate information organization and digital records management (2009) 0.04 
    0.037920326 = product of:
  0.07584065 = sum of:
    0.07584065 = product of:
      0.22752194 = sum of:
        0.22752194 = weight(_text_:3a in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22752194 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4048303 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4755313%2F4755314%2F04755480.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4755480&authDecision=-203.
  14. Li, L.; Shang, Y.; Zhang, W.: Improvement of HITS-based algorithms on Web documents 0.04 
    0.037920326 = product of:
  0.07584065 = sum of:
    0.07584065 = product of:
      0.22752194 = sum of:
        0.22752194 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22752194 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4048303 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.
  15. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.04 
    0.037920326 = product of:
  0.07584065 = sum of:
    0.07584065 = product of:
      0.22752194 = sum of:
        0.22752194 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22752194 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4048303 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
  16. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.04 
    0.037920326 = product of:
  0.07584065 = sum of:
    0.07584065 = product of:
      0.22752194 = sum of:
        0.22752194 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22752194 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4048303 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  17. Jascó, P.: Searching for images by similarity online (1998) 0.04 
    0.036597304 = product of:
  0.07319461 = sum of:
    0.07319461 = product of:
      0.14638922 = sum of:
        0.14638922 = weight(_text_:22 in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14638922 = score(doc=393,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16721454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    29.11.2004 13:03:22
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.99-102
  18. Hawking, D.; Robertson, S.: On collection size and retrieval effectiveness (2003) 0.04 
    0.036597304 = product of:
  0.07319461 = sum of:
    0.07319461 = product of:
      0.14638922 = sum of:
        0.14638922 = weight(_text_:22 in 4109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14638922 = score(doc=4109,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16721454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4109, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    14. 8.2005 14:22:22
  19. Buzydlowski, J.W.; White, H.D.; Lin, X.: Term Co-occurrence Analysis as an Interface for Digital Libraries (2002) 0.03 
    0.03361677 = product of:
  0.06723354 = sum of:
    0.06723354 = product of:
      0.13446708 = sum of:
        0.13446708 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13446708 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16721454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.804159 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2003 17:25:39
    22. 2.2003 18:16:22
  20. Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual definitions for INTERCONCEPT (1981) 0.03 
    0.03234775 = product of:
  0.0646955 = sum of:
    0.0646955 = product of:
      0.129391 = sum of:
        0.129391 = weight(_text_:22 in 1630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.129391 = score(doc=1630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16721454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    International classification. 8(1981), S.16-22

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 1936
  • m 151
  • s 97
  • el 70
  • b 31
  • r 10
  • x 8
  • i 3
  • n 2
  • p 2
  • h 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications