-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009)
0.03
0.033936 = product of:
0.067872 = sum of:
0.067872 = product of:
0.135744 = sum of:
0.135744 = weight(_text_:book in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.135744 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.5973039 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.
-
Gorraiz, J.; Purnell, P.J.; Glänzel, W.: Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index (2013)
0.03
0.03097919 = product of:
0.06195838 = sum of:
0.06195838 = product of:
0.12391676 = sum of:
0.12391676 = weight(_text_:book in 966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12391676 = score(doc=966,freq=10.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.5452614 = fieldWeight in 966, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=966)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article offers important background information about a new product, the Book Citation Index (BKCI), launched in 2011 by Thomson Reuters. Information is illustrated by some new facts concerning The BKCI's use in bibliometrics, coverage analysis, and a series of idiosyncrasies worthy of further discussion. The BKCI was launched primarily to assist researchers identify useful and relevant research that was previously invisible to them, owing to the lack of significant book content in citation indexes such as the Web of Science. So far, the content of 33,000 books has been added to the desktops of the global research community, the majority in the arts, humanities, and social sciences fields. Initial analyses of the data from The BKCI have indicated that The BKCI, in its current version, should not be used for bibliometric or evaluative purposes. The most significant limitations to this potential application are the high share of publications without address information, the inflation of publication counts, the lack of cumulative citation counts from different hierarchical levels, and inconsistency in citation counts between the cited reference search and the book citation index. However, The BKCI is a first step toward creating a reliable and necessary citation data source for monographs - a very challenging issue, because, unlike journals and conference proceedings, books have specific requirements, and several problems emerge not only in the context of subject classification, but also in their role as cited publications and in citing publications.
- Object
- Book Citation Index
-
Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003)
0.03
0.029324058 = product of:
0.058648117 = sum of:
0.058648117 = product of:
0.117296234 = sum of:
0.117296234 = weight(_text_:book in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.117296234 = score(doc=2213,freq=14.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.5161296 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.
The title of Chapter 5, On the Shoulders of Giants, implies that knowledge of the structure of scientific frontiers in the immediate past holds the key to a fruitful exploration of people's intellectual assets. Chapter 6, Tracing Competing Paradigms explains how information visualization can draw upon the philosophical framework of paradigm shifts and thereby enable scientists to track the development of Competing paradigms. The final chapter, Tracking Latent Domain Knowledge, turns citation analysis upside down by looking at techniques that may reveal latent domain knowledge. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization is an excellent book and is highly recommended. The book convincingly outlines general theories conceming cartography, visual communication, and science mapping-especially how metaphors can make a "big picture"simple and useful. The author likewise Shows how the GSA framework is based not only an technical possibilities but indeed also an the visualization principles presented in the beginning chapters. Also, the author does a fine job of explaining why the mapping of scientific frontiers needs a combined effort from a diverse range of underlying disciplines, such as philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientometrics, domain analyses, information visualization, knowledge discovery, and data mining.
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.027902018 = product of:
0.055804037 = sum of:
0.055804037 = product of:
0.11160807 = sum of:
0.11160807 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11160807 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = 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
-
Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992)
0.03
0.027902018 = product of:
0.055804037 = sum of:
0.055804037 = product of:
0.11160807 = sum of:
0.11160807 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11160807 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 2.2005 14:10:22
-
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y.: Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities : the flow of ides within and among disciplines (1998)
0.03
0.027708627 = product of:
0.055417255 = sum of:
0.055417255 = product of:
0.11083451 = sum of:
0.11083451 = weight(_text_:book in 4063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11083451 = score(doc=4063,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.4876966 = fieldWeight in 4063, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4063)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.024662131 = product of:
0.049324263 = sum of:
0.049324263 = product of:
0.098648526 = sum of:
0.098648526 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098648526 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = 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
-
Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000)
0.02
0.023511553 = product of:
0.047023106 = sum of:
0.047023106 = product of:
0.09404621 = sum of:
0.09404621 = weight(_text_:book in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09404621 = score(doc=4382,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.41382432 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
-
Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The J-shaped distribution of citedness (2002)
0.02
0.022166902 = product of:
0.044333804 = sum of:
0.044333804 = product of:
0.08866761 = sum of:
0.08866761 = weight(_text_:book in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08866761 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.02
0.017438762 = product of:
0.034877524 = sum of:
0.034877524 = product of:
0.06975505 = sum of:
0.06975505 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06975505 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Weinberg, B.H.: ¬The earliest Hebrew citation indexes (1997)
0.02
0.016625179 = product of:
0.033250358 = sum of:
0.033250358 = product of:
0.066500716 = sum of:
0.066500716 = weight(_text_:book in 86) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066500716 = score(doc=86,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 86, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=86)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The invention of the citation index was credited to Shepard (1873) and Shapiro described a legal citation index published in 1743. A similar index was embedded in the Talmud 2 centuries earlier (1546). The 1st Hebrew citation index to a printed book is dated 1511. The earliest Hebrew manuscript citation index, ascribed to Maimonides, dates from the 12th century. Considerable knowledge was assumed for users of these tools. The substantial knowledge of their compilers contrats with the semi-automatic production of modern citation indexes. The terms citation, quotation, reference, cross-reference, locator, and concordance are employed inconsistently in publications about Hebrew indexes. There is a lack of citation links between the secondary literature on Hebrew indexes and that of citation analysis
-
Davis, P.M.; Cohen, S.A.: ¬The effect of the Web on undergraduate citation behavior 1996-1999 (2001)
0.02
0.016625179 = product of:
0.033250358 = sum of:
0.033250358 = product of:
0.066500716 = sum of:
0.066500716 = weight(_text_:book in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066500716 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A citation analysis of undergraduate term papers in microeconomics revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of scholarly resources cited between 1996 and 1999. Book citations decreased from 30% to 19%, newspaper citations increased from 7% to 19%, and Web citations increased from 9% to 21%. Web citations checked in 2000 revealed that only 18% of URLs cited in 1996 led to the correct Internet document. For 1999 bibliographies, only 55% of URLs led to the correct document. The authors recommend (1) setting stricter guidelines for acceptable citations in course assignments; (2) creating and maintaining scholarly portals for authoritative Web sites with a commitment to long-term access; and (3) continuing to instruct students how to critically evaluate resources
-
McVeigh, M.E.: Citation indexes and the Web of Science (2009)
0.02
0.016625179 = product of:
0.033250358 = sum of:
0.033250358 = product of:
0.066500716 = sum of:
0.066500716 = weight(_text_:book in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066500716 = score(doc=3848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 3848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3848)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
-
White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004)
0.02
0.015674368 = product of:
0.031348735 = sum of:
0.031348735 = product of:
0.06269747 = sum of:
0.06269747 = weight(_text_:book in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06269747 = score(doc=2095,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.27588287 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.014797281 = product of:
0.029594561 = sum of:
0.029594561 = product of:
0.059189122 = sum of:
0.059189122 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059189122 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.01
0.013951009 = product of:
0.027902018 = sum of:
0.027902018 = product of:
0.055804037 = sum of:
0.055804037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055804037 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
-
White, H.D.: Citation analysis : history (2009)
0.01
0.013854314 = product of:
0.027708627 = sum of:
0.027708627 = product of:
0.055417255 = sum of:
0.055417255 = weight(_text_:book in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055417255 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2272612 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
-
Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001)
0.01
0.012207133 = product of:
0.024414266 = sum of:
0.024414266 = product of:
0.04882853 = sum of:
0.04882853 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04882853 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.12.2001 14:01:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006)
0.01
0.012207133 = product of:
0.024414266 = sum of:
0.024414266 = product of:
0.04882853 = sum of:
0.04882853 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04882853 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:20:01
-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.01
0.012207133 = product of:
0.024414266 = sum of:
0.024414266 = product of:
0.04882853 = sum of:
0.04882853 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04882853 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18029164 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051484983 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17.11.2020 12:22:59
