Search (214 results, page 2 of 11)

0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers' processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics' limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers' everyday relevance assessments.

0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=501,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Loan processors and underwriters at mortgage firms seek to gather substantial supporting documentation to properly understand and model loan risks. In doing so, loan originations become prone to closing delays, risking client dissatisfaction and consequent revenue losses. We collaborate with a large national mortgage firm to examine the extent to which these delays are predictable, using internal discussion threads to prioritize interventions for loans most at risk. Substantial work experience is required to predict delays, and we find that even highly trained employees have difficulty predicting delays by reviewing discussion threads. We develop an array of methods to predict loan delays. We apply four modern out-of-the-box sentiment analysis techniques, two dictionary-based and two rule-based, to predict delays. We contrast these approaches with domain-specific approaches, including firm-provided keyword searches and "smoke terms" derived using machine learning. Performance varies widely across sentiment approaches; while some sentiment approaches prioritize the top-ranking records well, performance quickly declines thereafter. The firm-provided keyword searches perform at the rate of random chance. We observe that the domain-specific smoke term approaches consistently outperform other approaches and offer better prediction than loan and borrower characteristics. We conclude that text mining solutions would greatly assist mortgage firms in delay prevention.

0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=558)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Web search is commonly used by fact checking systems as a source of evidence for claim verification. In this work, we demonstrate that the task of retrieving pages useful for fact checking, called evidential pages, is indeed different from the task of retrieving topically relevant pages that are typically optimized by search engines; thus, it should be handled differently. We conduct a comprehensive study on the performance of retrieving evidential pages over a test collection we developed for the task of re-ranking Web pages by usefulness for fact-checking. Results show that pages (retrieved by a commercial search engine) that are topically relevant to a claim are not always useful for verifying it, and that the engine's performance in retrieving evidential pages is weakly correlated with retrieval of topically relevant pages. Additionally, we identify types of evidence in evidential pages and some linguistic cues that can help predict page usefulness. Moreover, preliminary experiments show that a retrieval model leveraging those cues has a higher performance compared to the search engine. Finally, we show that existing systems have a long way to go to support effective fact checking. To that end, our work provides insights to guide design of better future systems for the task.

0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose A number of approaches and algorithms have been proposed over the years as a basis for automatic indexing. Many of these approaches suffer from precision inefficiency at low recall. The choice of indexing units has a great impact on search system effectiveness. The authors dive beyond simple terms indexing to propose a framework for multi-word terms (MWT) filtering and indexing. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors rely on ranking MWT to filter them, keeping the most effective ones for the indexing process. The proposed model is based on filtering MWT according to their ability to capture the document topic and distinguish between different documents from the same collection. The authors rely on the hypothesis that the best MWT are those that achieve the greatest association degree. The experiments are carried out with English and French languages data sets. Findings The results indicate that this approach achieved precision enhancements at low recall, and it performed better than more advanced models based on terms dependencies. Originality/value Using and testing different association measures to select MWT that best describe the documents to enhance the precision in the first retrieved documents.

0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Data Science (DS) has emerged from the shadows of its parents-statistics and computer science-into an independent field since its origin nearly six decades ago. Its evolution and education have taken many sharp turns. We present an impressionistic study of the evolution of DS anchored to Kuhn's four stages of paradigm shifts. First, we construct the landscape of DS based on curriculum analysis of the 32 iSchools across the world offering graduate-level DS programs. Second, we paint the "field" as it emerges from the word frequency patterns, ranking, and clustering of course titles based on text mining. Third, we map the curriculum to the landscape of DS and project the same onto the Edison Data Science Framework (2017) and ACM Data Science Knowledge Areas (2021). Our study shows that the DS programs of iSchools align well with the field and correspond to the Knowledge Areas and skillsets. iSchool's DS curriculums exhibit a bias toward "data visualization" along with machine learning, data mining, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence; go light on statistics; slanted toward ontologies and health informatics; and surprisingly minimal thrust toward eScience/research data management, which we believe would add a distinctive iSchool flavor to the DS.

0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=1134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Personal data play a fundamental role in contemporary socioeconomic dynamics, with one of its primary aspects being the potential to facilitate discriminatory situations. This situation impacts the knowledge organization field especially because it considers personal data as elements (facets) to categorize persons under an economic and sometimes discriminatory perspective. The research corpus was collected at Scopus and Web of Science until the end of 2021, under the terms "data discrimination", "algorithmic bias", "algorithmic discrimination" and "fair algorithms". The obtained results allowed to infer that the analyzed knowledge domain predominantly incorporates personal data, whether in its behavioral dimension or in the scope of the so-called sensitive data. These data are susceptible to the action of algorithms of different orders, such as relevance, filtering, predictive, social ranking, content recommendation and random classification. Such algorithms can have discriminatory biases in their programming related to gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, age, social class, socioeconomic profile, physical appearance, and political positioning.

0.0068010613 = product of:
  0.040806368 = sum of:
    0.040806368 = product of:
      0.061209552 = sum of:
        0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743055 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
        0.030466499 = weight(_text_:22 in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030466499 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 299, 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=299)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

30. 6.2021 16:29:52

Source

o-bib: Das offene Bibliotheksjournal. 8(2021) Nr.2, S.1-22

0.0068010613 = product of:
  0.040806368 = sum of:
    0.040806368 = product of:
      0.061209552 = sum of:
        0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743055 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
        0.030466499 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030466499 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:29

0.005667552 = product of:
  0.03400531 = sum of:
    0.03400531 = product of:
      0.051007964 = sum of:
        0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025619213 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025388751 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.005667552 = product of:
  0.03400531 = sum of:
    0.03400531 = product of:
      0.051007964 = sum of:
        0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025619213 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
        0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025388751 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity implies the previous existence of disciplinary fields and not their dissolution. As a general objective, we propose to establish an initial approach to the emphasis given to interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO, through the teaching staff responsible for postgraduate courses focused on -or related to the KO, in Ibero-American universities. For conducting the research, the framework and distribution of a survey addressed to teachers is proposed, based on four lines of action: 1. The way teachers manage the concept of interdisciplinarity. 2. The place that teachers give to interdisciplinarity in KO. 3. Assessment of interdisciplinary content that teachers incorporate into their postgraduate courses. 4. Set of teaching strategies and resources used by teachers to include interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO. The study analyzed 22 responses. Preliminary results show that KO teachers recognize the influence of other disciplines in concepts, theories, methods, and applications, but no consensus has been reached regarding which disciplines and authors are the ones who build interdisciplinary bridges. Among other conclusions, the study strongly suggests that environmental and social tensions are reflected in subject representation, especially in the construction of friendly knowl­edge organization systems with interdisciplinary visions, and in the expressions through which information is sought.

Date

20.11.2023 17:29:13

0.00493042 = product of:
  0.02958252 = sum of:
    0.02958252 = product of:
      0.08874755 = sum of:
        0.08874755 = weight(_text_:29 in 925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08874755 = score(doc=925,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.6731671 = fieldWeight in 925, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=925)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 3.2023 13:23:26
29. 3.2023 13:29:19

0.0039493614 = product of:
  0.023696167 = sum of:
    0.023696167 = product of:
      0.0710885 = sum of:
        0.0710885 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0710885 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, 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=1079)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 5371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=5371,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 5371, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5371)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Beitrag zur Tagung: "Nationalsozialismus Digital. Die Verantwortung von Bibliotheken, Archiven und Museen sowie Forschungseinrichtungen und Medien im Umgang mit der NSZeit im Netz." Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Universität Wien, 27. - 29. November 2019

0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 5742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=5742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 5742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5742)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2020, H.3, S.29

0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=5903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2020, H.7, S.29

0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=481)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Pirmasenser Zeitung. Nr. 29 vom 03.02.2023, S.2

0.0033851666 = product of:
  0.020311 = sum of:
    0.020311 = product of:
      0.060932998 = sum of:
        0.060932998 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060932998 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, 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=4156)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

2. 3.2020 14:08:22

0.0033851666 = product of:
  0.020311 = sum of:
    0.020311 = product of:
      0.060932998 = sum of:
        0.060932998 = weight(_text_:22 in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060932998 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1203, 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=1203)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2023, H.10, S.22-24

0.0028465795 = product of:
  0.017079476 = sum of:
    0.017079476 = product of:
      0.051238425 = sum of:
        0.051238425 = weight(_text_:29 in 5139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051238425 = score(doc=5139,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 5139, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5139)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 4.2020 18:30:27

0.0028465795 = product of:
  0.017079476 = sum of:
    0.017079476 = product of:
      0.051238425 = sum of:
        0.051238425 = weight(_text_:29 in 5699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051238425 = score(doc=5699,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 5699, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5699)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 6.2019 17:46:17