Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027944451 = product of:
  0.08383335 = sum of:
    0.0329774 = weight(_text_:web in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0329774 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.05085595 = product of:
      0.076283924 = sum of:
        0.038314294 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038314294 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
        0.03796963 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03796963 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Pages

S.22-36

Source

Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

0.012177117 = product of:
  0.0730627 = sum of:
    0.0730627 = weight(_text_:world in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0730627 = score(doc=4626,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.4747951 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the views put forward by Claudio Gnoli (2018) in this paper concerning philosophical problems in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach The paper presents the basic ideas in Gnoli (2018) and discusses the set of basic assumptions, concepts and conclusions put forward. Findings It is argued that the idea of the theory of levels is basically sound, but we do not need to consider the material world, the mental world (minds) and the world of mentefacts as three different worlds. They represent different levels with different kinds of emergent properties in the world. Further, although the concepts of artifacts and mentefacts are useful, there are other terms within LIS, such as document, work and object that have been influential and should be discussed in this context. It is also argued that subjective vs objective knowledge is often confused with private vs public knowledge, which is problematic. Finally, it is claimed that the cognitive view and the "sociological view" are not about two different levels of reality but are competing views about the same reality. Originality/value The paper clarifies some aspects of the analytical framework of domain analysis and adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

0.0069525037 = product of:
  0.020857511 = sum of:
    0.016337316 = weight(_text_:world in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016337316 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.10616741 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.004520194 = product of:
      0.013560582 = sum of:
        0.013560582 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013560582 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

0.0066624405 = product of:
  0.03997464 = sum of:
    0.03997464 = weight(_text_:web in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03997464 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

Object

Web of Science

0.0057891286 = product of:
  0.03473477 = sum of:
    0.03473477 = weight(_text_:wide in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03473477 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

0.0054457723 = product of:
  0.032674633 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.

0.0054457723 = product of:
  0.032674633 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.

0.0047110566 = product of:
  0.028266339 = sum of:
    0.028266339 = weight(_text_:web in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028266339 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.

0.004620891 = product of:
  0.027725345 = sum of:
    0.027725345 = weight(_text_:world in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027725345 = score(doc=5079,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.18017207 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

0.0024326537 = product of:
  0.014595922 = sum of:
    0.014595922 = product of:
      0.043787766 = sum of:
        0.043787766 = weight(_text_:29 in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043787766 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 9.2017 19:09:20

0.002128572 = product of:
  0.012771431 = sum of:
    0.012771431 = product of:
      0.038314294 = sum of:
        0.038314294 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038314294 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 9.2001 14:03:14

0.002109424 = product of:
  0.012656543 = sum of:
    0.012656543 = product of:
      0.03796963 = sum of:
        0.03796963 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03796963 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.0018080776 = product of:
  0.010848465 = sum of:
    0.010848465 = product of:
      0.032545395 = sum of:
        0.032545395 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032545395 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0015067314 = product of:
  0.009040388 = sum of:
    0.009040388 = product of:
      0.027121164 = sum of:
        0.027121164 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121164 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0015067314 = product of:
  0.009040388 = sum of:
    0.009040388 = product of:
      0.027121164 = sum of:
        0.027121164 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121164 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.0015067314 = product of:
  0.009040388 = sum of:
    0.009040388 = product of:
      0.027121164 = sum of:
        0.027121164 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121164 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22