Search (127 results, page 1 of 7)

0.232392 = product of:
  0.619712 = sum of:
    0.20657066 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20657066 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27566373 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.20657066 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20657066 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27566373 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.20657066 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20657066 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27566373 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.01763497 = product of:
  0.07053988 = sum of:
    0.059526492 = weight(_text_:union in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059526492 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.31801665 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
    0.011013382 = product of:
      0.022026764 = sum of:
        0.022026764 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022026764 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

0.0128878625 = product of:
  0.1031029 = sum of:
    0.1031029 = weight(_text_:union in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1031029 = score(doc=70,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.55082095 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Multivariate linear regression models suggest a trade-off in allocations of national research and development (R&D). Government funding and spending in the higher education sector encourage publications as a long-term research benefit. Conversely, other components such as industrial funding and spending in the business sector encourage patenting. Our results help explain why the United States trails the European Union in publications: The focus in the United States is on industrial funding-some 70% of its total R&D investment. Likewise, our results also help explain why the European Union trails the United States in patenting, since its focus on government funding is less effective than industrial funding in predicting triadic patenting. Government funding contributes negatively to patenting in a multiple regression, and this relationship is significant in the case of triadic patenting. We provide new forecasts about the relationships of the United States, the European Union, and China for publishing; these results suggest much later dates for changes than previous forecasts because Chinese growth has been slowing down since 2003. Models for individual countries might be more successful than regression models whose parameters are averaged over a set of countries because nations can be expected to differ historically in terms of the institutional arrangements and funding schemes.

0.0105228955 = product of:
  0.084183164 = sum of:
    0.084183164 = weight(_text_:union in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084183164 = score(doc=2846,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.44974342 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.

0.010417135 = product of:
  0.08333708 = sum of:
    0.08333708 = weight(_text_:union in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08333708 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.44522327 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Die International Mathematical Union (IMU) hat in Kooperation mit dem "International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM)" und dem "Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)" einen Bericht mit dem Titel Citation Statistics herausgegeben, für den das "Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research", bestehend aus Robert Adler, John Ewing (Chair) und Peter Taylor verantwortlich zeichnet. Wir drucken im Folgenden zunächst das "Executive Summary" dieses Berichts ab und geben anschließend einen Überblick über einige der wichtigsten Argumente und Ergebnisse des Berichts. Die darin wiedergegebenen Tabellen und Grafiken sind dem Bericht entnommen, wir danken den Autoren für die Genehmigung des Abdrucks des Executive Summary und dieser Tabellen und Grafiken. Soweit wir den Bericht in Übersetzung zitieren, handelt es sich nicht um eine autorisierte Übersetzung.

0.0074408115 = product of:
  0.059526492 = sum of:
    0.059526492 = weight(_text_:union in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059526492 = score(doc=2123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.31801665 = fieldWeight in 2123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2123)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The quality and impact of academic Web sites is of interest to many audiences, including the scholars who use them and Web educators who need to identify best practice. Several large-scale European Union research projects have been funded to build new indicators for online scientific activity, reflecting recognition of the importance of the Web for scholarly communication. In this paper we address the key question of whether higher rated scholars produce higher impact Web sites, using the United Kingdom as a case study and measuring scholars' quality in terms of university-wide average research ratings. Methodological issues concerning the measurement of the online impact are discussed, leading to the adoption of counts of links to a university's constituent single domain Web sites from an aggregated counting metric. The findings suggest that universities with higher rated scholars produce significantly more Web content but with a similar average online impact. Higher rated scholars therefore attract more total links from their peers, but only by being more prolific, refuting earlier suggestions. It can be surmised that general Web publications are very different from scholarly journal articles and conference papers, for which scholarly quality does associate with citation impact. This has important implications for the construction of new Web indicators, for example that online impact should not be used to assess the quality of small groups of scholars, even within a single discipline.

0.0074408115 = product of:
  0.059526492 = sum of:
    0.059526492 = weight(_text_:union in 3999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059526492 = score(doc=3999,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.31801665 = fieldWeight in 3999, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3999)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Hirsch's h index is becoming the standard measure of an individual's research accomplishments. The aggregation of individuals' measures is also the basis for global measures at institutional or national levels. To investigate whether the h index can be reliably computed through alternative sources of citation records, the Web of Science (WoS), PsycINFO and Google Scholar (GS) were used to collect citation records for known publications of four Spanish psychologists. Compared with WoS, PsycINFO included a larger percentage of publication records, whereas GS outperformed WoS and PsycINFO in this respect. Compared with WoS, PsycINFO retrieved a larger number of citations in unique areas of psychology, but it retrieved a smaller number of citations in areas that are close to statistics or the neurosciences, whereas GS retrieved the largest numbers of citations in all cases. Incorrect citations were scarce in Wos (0.3%), more prevalent in PsycINFO (1.1%), and overwhelming in GS (16.5%). All platforms retrieved unique citations, the largest set coming from GS. WoS and PsycINFO cover distinct areas of psychology unevenly, thus applying different penalties on the h index of researches working in different fields. Obtaining fair and accurate h indices required the union of citations retrieved by all three platforms.

0.0074408115 = product of:
  0.059526492 = sum of:
    0.059526492 = weight(_text_:union in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059526492 = score(doc=4002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.31801665 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This study explored the feasibility of using Web hyperlink data to study European political Web sites. Ninety-six European Union (EU) political parties belonging to a wide range of ideological, historical, and linguistic backgrounds were included in the study. Various types of data on Web links to party Web sites were collected. The Web colink data were visualized using multidimensional scaling (MDS), while the inlink data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance test. The results showed that Web hyperlink data did reflect some political patterns in the EU. The MDS maps showed clusters of political parties along ideological, historical, linguistic, and social lines. Statistical analysis based on inlink counts further confirmed that there was a significant difference along the line of the political history of a country, such that left-wing parties in the former communist countries received considerably fewer inlinks to their Web sites than left-wing parties in countries without a history of communism did. The study demonstrated the possibility of using Web hyperlink data to gain insights into political situations in the EU. This suggests the richness of Web hyperlink data and its potential in studying social-political phenomena.

0.0074408115 = product of:
  0.059526492 = sum of:
    0.059526492 = weight(_text_:union in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059526492 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.31801665 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Just as citations to a book can be counted, so can that book's libcitations-the number of libraries in a consortium that hold it. These holdings counts per title can be obtained from the consortium's union catalog, such as OCLC's WorldCat. Librarians seeking to serve their customers well must be attuned to various kinds of merit in books. The result in WorldCat is a great variation in the libcitations particular books receive. The higher a title's count (or percentile), the more famous it is-either absolutely or within a subject class. Degree of fame also indicates cultural impact, allowing that further documentation of impact may be needed. Using WorldCat data, we illustrate high, medium, and low degrees of fame with 170 titles published during 1990-1995 or 2001-2006 and spanning the 10 main Dewey classes. We use their total libcitation counts or their counts from members of the Association of Research Libraries, or both, as of late 2011. Our analysis of their fame draws on the recognizability of their authors, the extent to which they and their authors are covered by Wikipedia, and whether they have movie or TV versions. Ordinal scales based on Wikipedia coverage and on libcitation counts are very significantly associated.

0.0044644866 = product of:
  0.035715893 = sum of:
    0.035715893 = weight(_text_:union in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035715893 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.19080998 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0044343974 = product of:
  0.03547518 = sum of:
    0.03547518 = weight(_text_:unternehmen in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03547518 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17271045 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.20540263 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Vgl. auch Open Password, Nr.167 vom 01.03.2017 :"Eugene Garfield, Begründer und Pionier der Zitationsindexierung und der Ziationsanalyse, ohne den die Informationswissenschaft heute anders aussähe, ist im Alter von 91 Jahren gestorben. Er hinterlässt Frau, drei Söhne, eine Tochter, eine Stieftochter, zwei Enkeltöchter und zwei Großelternkinder. Garfield machte seinen ersten Abschluss als Bachelor in Chemie an der Columbia University in New York City im Jahre 1949. 1954 sattelte er einen Abschluss in Bibliothekswissenschaft drauf. 1961 sollte er im Fach strukturelle Linguistik promovieren. Als Chemie-Student war er nach eigenen Angaben weder besonders gut noch besonders glücklich. Sein "Erweckungserlebnis" hatte er auf einer Tagung der American Chemical Society, als er entdeckte, dass sich mit der Suche nach Literatur womöglich ein Lebensunterhalt bestreiten lasse. "So I went to the Chairman of the meeting and said: "How do you get a job in this racket?" Ab 1955 war Garfield zunächst als Berater für pharmazeutische Unternehmen tätig. Dort spezialisierte er sich auf Fachinformationen, indem er Inhalte relevanter Fachzeitschriften erarbeitete. 1955 schlug er in "Science" seine bahnbrechende Idee vor, Zitationen wissenschaftlicher Veröffentlichungen systematisch zu erfassen und Zusammenhänge zwischen Zitaten deutlich zu machen. 1960 gründete Garfield das Institute für Scientific Informationen, dessen CEO er bis 1992 blieb. 1964 brachte er den Scientific Information Index heraus. Weitere Maßgrößen wie der Social Science Index (ab 1973), der Arts and Humanities Citation Index (ab 1978) und der Journal Citation Index folgten. Diese Verzeichnisse wurden in dem "Web of Science" zusammengefasst und als Datenbank elektronisch zugänglich gemacht. Damit wurde es den Forschern ermöglich, die für sie relevante Literatur "at their fingertips" zu finden und sich in ihr zurechtzufinden. Darüber hinaus wurde es mit Hilfe der Rankings von Garfields Messgrößen möglich, die relative wissenschaftliche Bedeutung wissenschaftlicher Beiträge, Autoren, wissenschaftlicher Einrichtungen, Regionen und Länder zu messen.

0.0044053528 = product of:
  0.035242822 = sum of:
    0.035242822 = product of:
      0.070485644 = sum of:
        0.070485644 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070485644 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.0044053528 = product of:
  0.035242822 = sum of:
    0.035242822 = product of:
      0.070485644 = sum of:
        0.070485644 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070485644 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.0044053528 = product of:
  0.035242822 = sum of:
    0.035242822 = product of:
      0.070485644 = sum of:
        0.070485644 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070485644 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.0038938185 = product of:
  0.031150548 = sum of:
    0.031150548 = product of:
      0.062301096 = sum of:
        0.062301096 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062301096 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.0038938185 = product of:
  0.031150548 = sum of:
    0.031150548 = product of:
      0.062301096 = sum of:
        0.062301096 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062301096 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.0038546836 = product of:
  0.030837469 = sum of:
    0.030837469 = product of:
      0.061674938 = sum of:
        0.061674938 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061674938 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.0038546836 = product of:
  0.030837469 = sum of:
    0.030837469 = product of:
      0.061674938 = sum of:
        0.061674938 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061674938 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, 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=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.0038546836 = product of:
  0.030837469 = sum of:
    0.030837469 = product of:
      0.061674938 = sum of:
        0.061674938 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061674938 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

0.0033040144 = product of:
  0.026432116 = sum of:
    0.026432116 = product of:
      0.05286423 = sum of:
        0.05286423 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05286423 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, 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=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22