Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.04596136 = product of:
  0.27576816 = sum of:
    0.27576816 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27576816 = score(doc=183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3738479 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.737648 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

ISO 25964-1 ist der neue internationale Standard für Thesauri. Die Norm ersetzt ISO 2788 und ISO 5964. Erschienen unter dem vollständigen Titel "Information and documentation -Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies - Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval" berücksichtigt ISO 25964-1 einsprachige und mehrsprachige Thesauri sowie die heutigen Anforderungen an Interoperabilität, Networking und die gemeinsame Nutzung von Daten (Data Sharing). Im Standard sind folgende Themen enthalten: - Erstellung einsprachiger und mehrsprachiger Thesauri; - Klärung des Unterschieds zwischen Benennungen und Begriffen und ihrer Beziehungen zueinander; - Richtlinien zur Facettenanalyse, zur Gestaltung und Darstellung von Thesauri; - Richtlinien zur Thesaurusnutzung in computergestützten und vernetzten Systemen; Best-Practice-Modell für Management der Thesaurusentwicklung und -wartung; - Leitfaden Thesaurusverwaltungssoftware; - Datenmodell für ein- und mehrsprachige Thesauri; - zusammengefasste Empfehlungen für Austauschformate und -protokolle. Aus dem Datenmodell wurde ein XML-Schema für Datenaustauschzwecke erstellt, das frei verfügbar ist unter http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/.

0.04353413 = product of:
  0.13060239 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.045061965 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045061965 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = 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)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A thesaurus in the controlled vocabulary environment is a tool designed to support effective infonnation retrieval (IR) by guiding indexers and searchers consistently to choose the same terms for expressing a given concept or combination of concepts. Terms in the thesaurus are linked by relationships of three well-known types: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. The functions and properties of these three basic types and some subcategories are described, as well as some additional relationship types conunonly found in thesauri. Progressive automation of IR processes and the capability for simultaneous searching of vast networked resources are creating some pressures for change in the categorization and consistency of relationships.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

0.03791619 = product of:
  0.22749713 = sum of:
    0.22749713 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22749713 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3738479 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.60852855 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Die neue internationale Thesaurus-Norm ISO 25964-1 ersetzt die Normen ISO 2788 und ISO 5964. Ihr englischer Titel lautet "Information and documentation - Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies - Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval". Die Norm umfasst ein- und mehrsprachige Thesauri und berück sichtigt die Notwendigkeit von Datenaustausch, Vernetzung und Interoperabilität. Zu den Inhalten gehören - Konstruktion ein- und mehrsprachiger Thesauri - Unterschied zwischen Begriff und Benennung und ihren Beziehungen - Facettenanalyse und Layout - Einsatz von Thesauri in computergestützten und vernetzten Systemen - Management und Pflege von Thesauri - Richtlinien für Thesaurusmanagement-Software - Datenmodell für ein- und mehrsprachige Thesauri - Empfehlungen

0.028513474 = product of:
  0.17108084 = sum of:
    0.17108084 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17108084 = score(doc=6051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.7462918 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.021165766 = product of:
  0.1269946 = sum of:
    0.1269946 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1269946 = score(doc=2176,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.553978 = fieldWeight in 2176, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2176)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The ISO 2788 guidelines for monolingual thesauri contain a differentiation of "the hierarchical relationship" into "generic", "partitive", and "instance", which, for purposes of document retrieval, was deemed adequate. However, ontologies, designed as language inventories for a wider scope of knowledge representation, are based on all these and some more logical differentiations. Rereading the ISO 2788 standard and inspecting the published Cyc Upper Ontology, it is argued that the adoption of the document-retrieval definition of subsumption generally prevents the conception or use of a thesaurus as a substructure of an ontology of the new kind as constructed for AI applications. When a thesaurus is used for fact description and inference on fact descriptions, the instance-of relationship too should be reconsidered: It may also link concepts and metaconcepts, and then its distinction from subsumption is needed. The treatment of the instance-of relationship in thesauri, the Cyc Upper Ontology, and WordNet is described from this perspective

0.020366766 = product of:
  0.12220059 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=1520,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship

0.02016207 = product of:
  0.12097242 = sum of:
    0.12097242 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12097242 = score(doc=4030,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.527708 = fieldWeight in 4030, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4030)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes a design for ideal online subject and author thesauri. The subject thesaurus is a graphic thesaurus with a semantic network, so the spread activation assumption can be applied. The hierarchical relationship is broken into 3 specific relations, so automated inheritance can be performed. The associated relationship is separated with several specific relationships, so spatial recognition can function well. This thesaurus will provide variety and complexity to deal with uncertainty and will be a user constructed, user enhanced hyperthesaurus that serves as an analogue of the human mind. The author thesaurus is designed to show all authors which are alphabetically adjacent to a given author as well as other authors whose subject area is close to that of the given author

0.017281776 = product of:
  0.103690654 = sum of:
    0.103690654 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103690654 = score(doc=1148,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.45232117 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=6581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 6581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6581)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Automatic thesaurus construction is accomplished by extracting term relations mechanically. A popular method uses statistical analysis to discover the term relations. For low frequency terms the statistical information of the terms cannot be reliably used for deciding the relationship of terms. This problem is referred to as the data sparseness problem. Many studies have shown that low frequency terms are of most use in thesaurus construction. Characterizes the statistical behaviour of terms by using an inference network. Develops a formal approach using a Baysian network for the data sparseness problem

0.0150206555 = product of:
  0.09012393 = sum of:
    0.09012393 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09012393 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Parlaments- und Behördenbibliotheken. 1989, H.67, S.1-22

0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Discusses the concept of descriptor equivalence, with its 2 subcomponents of dictionary equivalence and indexing equivalence, in the context of the compatibility of differnt thesauri used in bilingual indexing. In multilingual indexing and searching, the equivalence relationship between terms means either that all equal terms are descriptors or that only one of the terms is selected for the descriptor and users are directed with USE refrences to use it instead of the other potential terms. Discusses these issues with particular reference to the LUASPORT study: a study of the compatibility of the Finnish language sports thesaurus (LUAS) with the Canadian Sport Thesauri (SPORT) in terms of compatibility of subject descriptors. In LUASPORT, LUAS was the source thesaurus and SPORT was the target thesaurus

0.014110511 = product of:
  0.08466306 = sum of:
    0.08466306 = weight(_text_:relationship in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08466306 = score(doc=549,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3693187 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This Standard presents guidelines and conventions for the contents, display, construction, testing, maintenance, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. This Standard focuses on controlled vocabularies that are used for the representation of content objects in knowledge organization systems including lists, synonym rings, taxonomies, and thesauri. This Standard should be regarded as a set of recommendations based on preferred techniques and procedures. Optional procedures are, however, sometimes described, e.g., for the display of terms in a controlled vocabulary. The primary purpose of vocabulary control is to achieve consistency in the description of content objects and to facilitate retrieval. Vocabulary control is accomplished by three principal methods: defining the scope, or meaning, of terms; using the equivalence relationship to link synonymous and nearly synonymous terms; and distinguishing among homographs.

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=3678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.

0.01072904 = product of:
  0.06437424 = sum of:
    0.06437424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437424 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4158, 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=4158)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill

0.01072904 = product of:
  0.06437424 = sum of:
    0.06437424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437424 = score(doc=4162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4162, 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=4162)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill