Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.054462783 = product of:
  0.21785113 = sum of:
    0.17170866 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 5747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17170866 = score(doc=5747,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.7442355 = fieldWeight in 5747, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5747)
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 5747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=5747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 5747, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5747)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Drawing on the PCC's history with linked data and related work this article identifies and gives context to pressing areas PCC will need to focus on moving forward. These areas include defining plausible data targets, tractable implementation models and data flows, engaging in related tool development, and participating in the broader linked data community.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.051835872 = product of:
  0.20734349 = sum of:
    0.15024509 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15024509 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.6512061 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
    0.057098407 = weight(_text_:work in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057098407 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has formal relationships with the Library of Congress (LC), Share-VDE, and Linked Data for Production Phase 2 (LD4P2) for work on Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), and PCC institutions have been very active in the exploration of MARC to BIBFRAME conversion processes. This article will review the involvement of PCC in the development of BIBFRAME and examine the work of LC, Share-VDE, and LD4P2 on MARC to BIBFRAME conversion. It will conclude with a discussion of areas for further exploration by the PCC leading up to the creation of PCC conversion specifications and PCC BIBFRAME data.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.036653496 = product of:
  0.14661399 = sum of:
    0.10623932 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10623932 = score(doc=123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.46047226 = fieldWeight in 123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=123)
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=123)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.02655983 = product of:
  0.21247864 = sum of:
    0.21247864 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21247864 = score(doc=124,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.9209445 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In 1988 the Library of Congress and eight library participants undertook a two-year pilot known as the National Coordinated Cataloging Program (NCCP) to increase the number of quality bibliographic records. Subsequently the Bibliographic Services Study Committee reviewed the pilot. Discussions held at the Library of Congress (LC) and in other fora resulted in the creation of the Cooperative Cataloging Council, and, ultimately, the establishment of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) in 1994. The conditions that contributed to a successful approach to shared cataloging are described. The article concludes with considerations for expanding the future effectiveness of the PCC.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.023001488 = product of:
  0.1840119 = sum of:
    0.1840119 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1840119 = score(doc=121,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.79756135 = fieldWeight in 121, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=121)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article examines the motivations for the collaboration between the British Library and Library of Congress to develop a joint (Anglo-American) authority file. It describes the obstacles that had to be overcome for the British Library to become a Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) "copy holder", or node. It considers the contribution the British Library made to NACO, the benefits it has derived from participation in Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), and concludes by looking ahead to the next 25 years.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.013352668 = product of:
  0.10682134 = sum of:
    0.10682134 = weight(_text_:work in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10682134 = score(doc=120,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.75104225 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The bibliographic work has assumed a great deal of importance in modern cataloging. But the concept of the work has existed for over a century, and even some of the earliest catalog codes differentiate between the intellectual work and its instances. This article will delve into the history and theory of the work, providing a basic overview of the concept as well as a summary of the myriad uses of the work throughout the history of cataloging. In addition to monographs, this paper will look at the work as applied to music, moving images, serials, and aggregates.

0.013279915 = product of:
  0.10623932 = sum of:
    0.10623932 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10623932 = score(doc=707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.46047226 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper discusses the basics of creating name authority records for Arabic personal names in accordance with Resource Description and Access instructions and Program for Cooperative Cataloging guidelines. A background into the use of romanization for non-Latin scripts in bibliographic and authority records is provided to establish the context. Issues with romanization that are particular to Arabic are addressed. Separate sections on modern and classical names provide an overview of the major challenges, and strategies to enhance discovery are outlined. The paper concludes with an examination of the possible benefits of identity management and other changes in the authority control landscape for names in non-Latin script.

0.012362168 = product of:
  0.098897345 = sum of:
    0.098897345 = weight(_text_:work in 974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098897345 = score(doc=974,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.69532996 = fieldWeight in 974, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=974)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper presents preliminary findings from an exploratory research study investigating the education, Library and Information Science (LIS) work experiences, and demographics of description specialists engaging in inclusive description work and/or initiatives. Survey results represent participants' education background, LIS work experiences, motivations behind projects and initiatives, areas of work and types of project priorities, preferred outcomes, and challenges encountered while engaging in inclusive description work and/or initiatives. Findings also point to gaps in understanding related to cultural concepts. A participant-created definition for inclusive description is a successful outcome of the study.

0.007137301 = product of:
  0.057098407 = sum of:
    0.057098407 = weight(_text_:work in 725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057098407 = score(doc=725,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 725, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=725)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper reports an investigation of machine learning methods for the semi-automated creation of a BIBFRAME Work entity description within the RDF linked data editor Sinopia (https://sinopia.io). The automated subject indexing software Annif was configured with the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) vocabulary from the Linked Data Service at https://id.loc.gov/. The training corpus was comprised of 9.3 million titles and LCSH linked data references from the IvyPlus POD project (https://pod.stanford.edu/) and from Share-VDE (https://wiki.share-vde.org). Semi-automated processes were explored to support and extend, not replace, professional expertise.

0.007137301 = product of:
  0.057098407 = sum of:
    0.057098407 = weight(_text_:work in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057098407 = score(doc=1151,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper explores the challenges currently faced by music cataloguers, with particular regard to their training and the systems they work with. It asks whether music catalogers feel they have enough support and training to do their work; it investigates the skills they require, and how they might be taught. It also examines whether systems need to be adapted to suit printed music. The project focuses on staff responsible for cataloging printed music at music libraries in the UK (public, academic, legal deposit and specialist). Here, the term "cataloger" refers to any member of staff who catalogs printed music.

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=708,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Ethics are principles which provide a framework for making decisions that best reflect a set of values. Cataloging carries power, so ethical decision-making is crucial. Because cataloging requires decision-making in areas that differ from other library work, cataloging ethics are a distinct subset of library ethics. Cataloging ethics draw on the primary values of serving the needs of users and providing access to materials. Cataloging ethics are not new, but they have received increased attention since the 1970s. Major current issues in cataloging ethics include the creation of a code of ethics; ongoing debate on the appropriate role of neutrality in cataloging misleading materials and in subject heading lists and classification schemes; how and to what degree considerations of privacy and self-determination should shape authority work; and whether or not our current cataloging codes are sufficiently user-focused.

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 21) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=21,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 21, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=21)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The "author" is a concept central to many publication and documentation practices, often carrying legal, professional, social, and personal importance. Typically viewed as the solitary owner of their creations, a person is held responsible for their work and positioned to receive the praise and criticism that may emerge in its wake. Although the role of the individual within creative production is undeniable, literary (Foucault 1977; Bloom 1997) and knowledge organization (Moulaison et. al. 2014) theorists have challenged the view that the work of one person can-or should-be fully detached from their professional and personal networks. As these relationships often provide important context and reveal the role of community in the creation of new things, their absence from catalog records presents a falsely simplified view of the creative process. Here, we address the consequences of what we call the "author-asowner" concept and suggest that an "author-as-node" approach, which situates an author within their networks of influence, may allow for more relational representation within knowledge organization systems, a framing that emphasizes rather than erases the messy complexities that affect the production of new objects and ideas.

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article discusses how libraries can include person identifiers in the MARC format. It suggests using URIs in fields and subfields to help transition the data to an RDF model, and to help prepare the catalog for a Linked Data. It analyzes the selection of URIs and Real-World Objects, and the use of tag 024 to describe person identifiers in authority records. When a creator or collaborator is identified in a work, the identifiers are transferred from authority to the bibliographic record. The article concludes that URI-based descriptions can provide a better experience for users, offering other methods of discovery.

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The mapping from BIBFRAME 2.0 to Resource Description and Access (RDA) is studied focusing on core entities, inherent relationships, and derivative relationships. The proposed mapping rules are evaluated with two gold datasets. Findings indicate that 1) core entities, inherent and derivative relationships may be mapped to RDA, 2) the use of the bf:hasExpression property may cluster bf:Works with the same ideational content and enable their mapping to RDA Works with their Expressions, and 3) cataloging policies have a significant impact on the interoperability between RDA and BIBFRAME datasets. This work complements the investigation of semantic interoperability between the two models previously presented in this journal.

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=711)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In 2019, Pepperdine Libraries acquired two virtual reality artworks by filmmaker and artist Paisley Smith: Homestay and Unceded Territories. To bring awareness to these pieces, Pepperdine Libraries added these works to the library catalog, creating bibliographic records for both films. There were many challenges and considerations in cataloging virtual reality art, including factors such as the nature of the work, the limits found in Resource Description and Access (RDA) and MARC, and providing access to these works. This paper discusses these topics, as well as provides recommendations for potential future standards for cataloging virtual works.

0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Descriptive cataloging is the process of representing resources by recording their identifying traits and selecting specific names and titles to serve as access points. It is a key component of the larger cataloging process alongside subject cataloging, authority work, and encoding. Descriptive cataloging practices have existed for centuries and, over time, have become standardized through the use of cataloging codes. These documents guide this process by prescribing a consistent set of elements, providing directions on how to record these elements, and offering instructions on how to select and format access points. The goal of descriptive cataloging is not to create perfect representations but to provide data to serve users. The international cataloging standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) is now bringing more institutions under the same set of descriptive practices than ever before. This, along with recent technological developments, promises increased sharing and reuse of descriptive cataloging data.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=5708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=59,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 59, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=59)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Author name disambiguation (AND) is a challenging problem due to several issues such as missing key identifiers, same name corresponding to multiple authors, along with inconsistent representation. Several techniques have been proposed but maintaining consistent accuracy levels over all data sets is still a major challenge. We identify two major issues associated with the AND problem. First, the namesake problem in which two or more authors with the same name publishes in a similar domain. Second, the diverse topic problem in which one author publishes in diverse topical domains with a different set of coauthors. In this work, we initially propose a method named ATGEP for AND that addresses the namesake issue. We evaluate the performance of ATGEP using various ambiguous name references collected from the Arnetminer Citation (AC) and Web of Science (WoS) data set. We empirically show that the two aforementioned problems are crucial to address the AND problem that are difficult to handle using state-of-the-art techniques. To handle the diverse topic issue, we extend ATGEP to a new variant named ATGEP-web that considers external web information of the authors. Experiments show that with enough information available from external web sources ATGEP-web can significantly improve the results further compared with ATGEP.

0.002625104 = product of:
  0.021000832 = sum of:
    0.021000832 = product of:
      0.042001665 = sum of:
        0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042001665 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, 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=5749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

2. 3.2020 19:04:22

0.0019688278 = product of:
  0.015750622 = sum of:
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, 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=941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 3.2023 12:00:14