Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016664267 = product of:
  0.08332133 = sum of:
    0.008141369 = product of:
      0.024424106 = sum of:
        0.024424106 = weight(_text_:problem in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024424106 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.075179964 = sum of:
      0.027538298 = weight(_text_:1990 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027538298 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03067635 = queryNorm
          0.1991816 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.031016776 = weight(_text_:2010 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031016776 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03067635 = queryNorm
          0.21138735 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.016624888 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016624888 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03067635 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the research reported here is to improve comprehension of the socially-negotiated identity of concepts in the domain of knowledge organization. Because knowledge organization as a domain has as its focus the order of concepts, both from a theoretical perspective and from an applied perspective, it is important to understand how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides an empirical demonstration of how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. The paper employs content analysis to demonstrate the ways in which concepts are portrayed in KO concept maps as signs, and they are subjected to evaluative semiotic analysis as a way to understand their meaning. The frame was the entire population of formal proceedings in knowledge organization - all proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization's international conferences (1990-2010) and those of the annual classification workshops of the Special Interest Group for Classification Research of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (SIG/CR). Findings - A total of 344 concept maps were analyzed. There was no discernible chronological pattern. Most concept maps were created by authors who were professors from the USA, Germany, France, or Canada. Roughly half were judged to contain semiotic content. Peirceian semiotics predominated, and tended to convey greater granularity and complexity in conceptual terminology. Nodes could be identified as anchors of conceptual clusters in the domain; the arcs were identifiable as verbal relationship indicators. Saussurian concept maps were more applied than theoretical; Peirceian concept maps had more theoretical content. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates important empirical evidence about the coherence of the domain of knowledge organization. Core values are conveyed across time through the concept maps in this population of conference papers.

Content

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.

0.0043541878 = product of:
  0.043541875 = sum of:
    0.043541875 = product of:
      0.13062562 = sum of:
        0.13062562 = weight(_text_:1990 in 3573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13062562 = score(doc=3573,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.94480133 = fieldWeight in 3573, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3573)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 11(1990) nos.3/4, S.1-15

Year

1990

0.0032898262 = product of:
  0.032898262 = sum of:
    0.032898262 = product of:
      0.09869478 = sum of:
        0.09869478 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09869478 = score(doc=4162,freq=9.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.6726304 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
              3.0 = tf(freq=9.0), with freq of:
                9.0 = termFreq=9.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The cataloging and classification community was called to highlight 2010 as "The Year of Cataloging Research," and specifically was challenged to generate research ideas, conduct research, and generally promote the development of new research in cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly has become the most influential journal of research in cataloging and classification since its inception in 1981. The idea behind the research reported here was to give the CCQ editorial board an opportunity to present its point of view about research for cataloging. A Delphi study was conducted in three stages during the 2009-2010 academic year. Members were asked to define the key terms "cataloging," "evidence," and "research," and to develop a research agenda in cataloging. The results reveal a basic core definition of cataloging perceived as a dynamic, active process at the core of information retrieval. An eight point research agenda emerges that is forward-looking and embraces change, along with top-ranked calls for new empirical evidence about catalogs, cataloging, and catalog users.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.8, S.645-651

Year

2010

0.0024520915 = product of:
  0.024520915 = sum of:
    0.024520915 = product of:
      0.07356274 = sum of:
        0.07356274 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356274 = score(doc=3513,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi

Year

2010

0.0021770939 = product of:
  0.021770937 = sum of:
    0.021770937 = product of:
      0.06531281 = sum of:
        0.06531281 = weight(_text_:1990 in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06531281 = score(doc=490,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.47240067 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 11(1990) nos.3/4, S.63-90

Year

1990

0.0015669101 = product of:
  0.0156691 = sum of:
    0.0156691 = product of:
      0.0470073 = sum of:
        0.0470073 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0470073 = score(doc=4555,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.32036692 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

As we all know, Knowledge Organization (KO) is a pretty broad domain. Although the concept-theoretic approach to classification is at the core along with several other important pieces of what we call classification theory, both the intension and the extension of the domain are represented by broad trajectories. Arguably, the biennial conferences represent way stations within the matrix of the domain-points in time when we pause to take stock of our current research. Also, because each conference is hosted and planned by a regional chapter, each then reflects peculiar parameters of the intersections of intensional and extensional trajectories. Perhaps because the domain of knowledge itself is so immense, so also is our corporate attempt to grapple with the theoretical and applied aspects of its organization. Furthermore, because of the breadth of our domain, many possibilities exist for its representation, depending on the constitution of the research front (or fronts) at any moment in time. That is, research in the domain stretches in all directions from its solid theoretical core down many much more granular roadways. Thus by analyzing the activity and contents of these metaphorical way stations-that is, by bring the tools of domain analysis to bear on our own biennial conferences-we are able to visualize the moment in time represented by the accumulated scholarship generated by each conference. 2010's 11th International ISKO Conference in Rome offered the latest opportunity for analysis on a broad scale.
To take advantage of the wonderful Italian weather, ISKO's 2010 conference was moved from the usual August to February; the venue was the Sapienza University (officially Sapienza - Università di Roma) and the conference took place 23-26 February 2010. The conference was organized and hosted by ISKO Italy and the Faculty of Philosophy of Sapienza University. Each morning as attendees arrived, we were treated to the garden pictured in Figure 1, and especially interesting was the fountain and the statue of St. Francis. Of course, the mystery was the turtle at St. Francis' foot, which looks quite like part of the statue but turned out to be real. The peaceful gardens were just a hallmark of the contemplative nature of the conference. Officially the 11th International ISKO Conference, the theme was "Paradigms and Conceptual Systems in Knowledge Organization." The proceedings and the conference program together listed 65 presentations, of which 64 were actually presented and 61 had papers included in the proceedings (or, 4 papers were presented but not included in the proceedings, and 1 paper included in the proceedings was not presented). Although space is insufficient for a full analysis, following from my editorial following ISKO 10 (Smiraglia 2008), I will use this space to paint a brief bibliometric portrait of the domain at the core of this conference. Data for this analysis come from the PDF of the proceedings; all citations for all papers were pasted in an Excel spreadsheet, where the citations were variously delimited for the following analyses. The original file is available on my blog: http://lazykoblog.wordpress.com/.

0.0014392043 = product of:
  0.0143920425 = sum of:
    0.0143920425 = product of:
      0.043176126 = sum of:
        0.043176126 = weight(_text_:problem in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043176126 = score(doc=5312,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

A work is a deliberately created informing entity intended for communication. A work consists of abstract intellectual content that is distinct from any object that is its carrier. In library and information science, the importance of the work lies squarely with the problem of information retrieval. Works are mentefacts-intellectual (or mental) constructs that serve as artifacts of the cultures in which they arise. The meaning of a work is abstract at every level, from its creator's conception of it, to its reception and inherence by its consumers. Works are a kind of informing object and are subject to the phenomenon of instantiation, or realization over time. Research has indicated a base typology of instantiation. The problem for information retrieval is to simultaneously collocate and disambiguate large sets of instantiations. Cataloging and bibliographc tradition stipulate an alphabetico-classed arrangement of works based on an authorship principle. FRBR provided an entity-relationship schema for enhanced control of works in future catalogs, which has been incorporated into RDA. FRBRoo provides an empirically more precise model of work entities as informing objects and a schema for their representation in knowledge organization systems.

0.0012212053 = product of:
  0.012212053 = sum of:
    0.012212053 = product of:
      0.03663616 = sum of:
        0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03663616 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

For a long time music librarians have grappled with the problem of cataloguing music scores along with physical recordings, including videorecordings of musical performances, in such a way as to collocate als physical forms in an intelligible order. The critical problems are, how to identify the properties of musical bibliographic entities and then how to control each property in the bibliographic universe and in each of the subsets of that universe, such as the library OPAC. Examines the concept of the 'musical work' as it has been decribed by bibliographers, cataloguers and scholars of bibliographic control. Concludes that there is ample evidence that equality exists among the representations of a musical work regardless of their physical formats. An understanding of the concept of the musical work should obviate the need to reconsider forms of access under current cataloguing practice and lead the way to the next generation of bibliographic control for musical works

0.0012212053 = product of:
  0.012212053 = sum of:
    0.012212053 = product of:
      0.03663616 = sum of:
        0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03663616 = score(doc=441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=441)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The uniform title is viewed historically as an artificial device to collocate works. In music cataloging, problems of multiple manifestations with variant title pages lead to the development of uniform titles that would both collocate and distinguish, and ultimately serve as identifiers for musical works. A principal problem in the authority control of works is recognition of multiple manifestations and the concomitant syndetic depth. Research suggests a low incidence of multiple manifestations among textual works, but hints that a greater incidence might be found among musical works. An empirical study is conducted using a sample of musical works and locating for each all physical manifestations in OCLC and the NUC. Virtually the entire sample of musical works yielded multiple manifestations. A majority of the manifestations had titles proper different from that of the first edition of the work. It is concluded that an authority-controlled collocating device is necessary for musical works, that more references are required, and that links among authority records for works could provide increased syndetic depth.

0.0010176711 = product of:
  0.010176711 = sum of:
    0.010176711 = product of:
      0.03053013 = sum of:
        0.03053013 = weight(_text_:problem in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053013 = score(doc=3043,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

A major problem for bibliographic retrieval is an absence of explicit linkages to guide users among manifestations of a work. The purpose of this research was to enhance the power of bibliographic retrieval systems by providing contextual information about the derivative bibliographic relationship. Descriptive survey method was employed. A sample of 411 works from the Georgetown University on-line catalog was drawn. 49.9% of works were derivative. Age of a progenitor work is the characteristic most strongly associated with derivation; language and country of origin are indifferent predictors. Popularity of works might contribute to the phenomenon of derivation. The mean size of bibliographic families of derivative works was 8.44 members. The majority of bibliographic families had successive derivations, large groups of bibliographic families had translations and simultaneous editions; few had extractions, amplifications, or performances; none had adaptations. Successive derivations are the most commonly found members of bibliographic families, and are associated with most other types of derivation within bibliographic families. The bibliographic data required for explicit control of works might easily be compiled from existing records. The development of bibliographic retrieval systems in the network environment could play a dramatic role in improving retrieval of works

0.0010176711 = product of:
  0.010176711 = sum of:
    0.010176711 = product of:
      0.03053013 = sum of:
        0.03053013 = weight(_text_:problem in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053013 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.

8.3124434E-4 = product of:
  0.008312443 = sum of:
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

8.3124434E-4 = product of:
  0.008312443 = sum of:
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

6.927037E-4 = product of:
  0.0069270367 = sum of:
    0.0069270367 = product of:
      0.02078111 = sum of:
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

6.927037E-4 = product of:
  0.0069270367 = sum of:
    0.0069270367 = product of:
      0.02078111 = sum of:
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, 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=630)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:09:49

6.927037E-4 = product of:
  0.0069270367 = sum of:
    0.0069270367 = product of:
      0.02078111 = sum of:
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 636, 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=636)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:43:34

6.927037E-4 = product of:
  0.0069270367 = sum of:
    0.0069270367 = product of:
      0.02078111 = sum of:
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1412, 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=1412)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

3.4635185E-4 = product of:
  0.0034635183 = sum of:
    0.0034635183 = product of:
      0.010390555 = sum of:
        0.010390555 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010390555 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22