Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.044628493 = product of:
  0.13388547 = sum of:
    0.0026145522 = product of:
      0.007843656 = sum of:
        0.007843656 = weight(_text_:p in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007843656 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.099312946 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.014293685 = weight(_text_:und in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014293685 = score(doc=1323,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.29359633 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.031724233 = weight(_text_:methodik in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031724233 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15883602 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.230979 = idf(docFreq=86, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.19972947 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.230979 = idf(docFreq=86, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.009306135 = weight(_text_:des in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009306135 = score(doc=1323,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06083074 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.015729094 = weight(_text_:fragen in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015729094 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11184209 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0915895 = idf(docFreq=738, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.14063662 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.0915895 = idf(docFreq=738, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.014199856 = weight(_text_:der in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014199856 = score(doc=1323,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.28939712 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.031724233 = weight(_text_:methodik in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031724233 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15883602 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.230979 = idf(docFreq=86, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.19972947 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.230979 = idf(docFreq=86, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.014293685 = weight(_text_:und in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014293685 = score(doc=1323,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.29359633 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.33333334 = coord(8/24)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 59(2006) H.2, S.81-83 (O. Oberhauser): "Mit diesem Band haben zwei herausragende Vertreter der europäischen Informationswissenschaft, die Professoren Peter Ingwersen (Kopenhagen) und Kalervo Järvelin (Tampere) ein Werk vorgelegt, das man vielleicht dereinst als ihr opus magnum bezeichnen wird. Mich würde dies nicht überraschen, denn die Autoren unternehmen hier den ambitionierten Versuch, zwei informations wissenschaftliche Forschungstraditionen, die einander bisher in eher geringem Ausmass begegneten, unter einem gesamtheitlichen kognitiven Ansatz zu vereinen - das primär im sozialwissenschaftlichen Bereich verankerte Forschungsgebiet "Information Seeking and Retrieval" (IS&R) und das vorwiegend im Informatikbereich angesiedelte "Information Retrieval" (IR). Dabei geht es ihnen auch darum, den seit etlichen Jahren zwar dominierenden, aber auch als zu individualistisch kritisierten kognitiven Ansatz so zu erweitern, dass technologische, verhaltensbezogene und kooperative Aspekte in kohärenter Weise berücksichtigt werden. Dies geschieht auf folgende Weise in neun Kapiteln: - Zunächst werden die beiden "Lager" - die an Systemen und Laborexperimenten orientierte IR-Tradition und die an Benutzerfragen orientierte IS&R-Fraktion - einander gegenübergestellt und einige zentrale Begriffe geklärt. - Im zweiten Kapitel erfolgt eine ausführliche Darstellung der kognitiven Richtung der Informationswissenschaft, insbesondere hinsichtlich des Informationsbegriffes. - Daran schliesst sich ein Überblick über die bisherige Forschung zu "Information Seeking" (IS) - eine äusserst brauchbare Einführung in die Forschungsfragen und Modelle, die Forschungsmethodik sowie die in diesem Bereich offenen Fragen, z.B. die aufgrund der einseitigen Ausrichtung des Blickwinkels auf den Benutzer mangelnde Betrachtung der Benutzer-System-Interaktion. - In analoger Weise wird im vierten Kapitel die systemorientierte IRForschung in einem konzentrierten Überblick vorgestellt, in dem es sowohl um das "Labormodell" als auch Ansätze wie die Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache und Expertensysteme geht. Aspekte wie Relevanz, Anfragemodifikation und Performanzmessung werden ebenso angesprochen wie die Methodik - von den ersten Laborexperimenten bis zu TREC und darüber hinaus.
- Kapitel fünf enthält einen entsprechenden Überblick über die kognitive und benutzerorientierte IR-Tradition. Es zeigt, welche anderen (als nur die labororientierten) IR-Studien durchgeführt werden können, wobei sich die Betrachtung von frühen Modellen (z.B. Taylor) über Belkins ASK-Konzept bis zu Ingwersens Modell der Polyrepräsentation, und von Bates Berrypicking-Ansatz bis zu Vakkaris "taskbased" IR-Modell erstreckt. Auch Web-IR, OKAPI und Diskussionen zum Relevanzbegriff werden hier thematisiert. - Im folgenden Kapitel schlagen die Autoren ein integriertes IS&R Forschungsmodell vor, bei dem die vielfältigen Beziehungen zwischen Informationssuchenden, Systementwicklern, Oberflächen und anderen beteiligten Aspekten berücksichtigt werden. Ihr Ansatz vereint die traditionelle Laborforschung mit verschiedenen benutzerorientierten Traditionen aus IS&R, insbesondere mit den empirischen Ansätzen zu IS und zum interaktiven IR, in einem holistischen kognitiven Modell. - Kapitel sieben untersucht die Implikationen dieses Modells für IS&R, wobei besonders ins Auge fällt, wie komplex die Anfragen von Informationssuchenden im Vergleich mit der relativen Einfachheit der Algorithmen zum Auffinden relevanter Dokumente sind. Die Abbildung der vielfältig variierenden kognitiven Zustände der Anfragesteller im Rahmen der der Systementwicklung ist sicherlich keine triviale Aufgabe. Wie dabei das Problem der Einbeziehung des zentralen Aspektes der Bedeutung gelöst werden kann, sei dahingestellt. - Im achten Kapitel wird der Versuch unternommen, die zuvor diskutierten Punkte in ein IS&R-Forschungsprogramm (Prozesse - Verhalten - Systemfunktionalität - Performanz) umzusetzen, wobei auch einige kritische Anmerkungen zur bisherigen Forschungspraxis getroffen werden. - Das abschliessende neunte Kapitel fasst das Buch kurz zusammen und kann somit auch als Einstieg in dieThematik gelesen werden. Darauffolgen noch ein sehr nützliches Glossar zu allen wichtigen Begriffen, die in dem Buch Verwendung finden, eine Bibliographie und ein Sachregister. Ingwersen und Järvelin haben hier ein sehr anspruchsvolles und dennoch lesbares Buch vorgelegt. Die gebotenen Übersichtskapitel und Diskussionen sind zwar keine Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft, decken aber einen grossen Teil der heute in dieser Disziplin aktuellen und durch laufende Forschungsaktivitäten und Publikationen berührten Teilbereiche ab. Man könnte es auch - vielleicht ein wenig überspitzt - so formulieren: Was hier thematisiert wird, ist eigentlich die moderne Informationswissenschaft. Der Versuch, die beiden Forschungstraditionen zu vereinen, wird diesem Werk sicherlich einen Platz in der Geschichte der Disziplin sichern. Nicht ganz glücklich erscheint der Titel des Buches. "The Turn" soll eine Wende bedeuten, nämlich jene hin zu einer integrierten Sicht von IS und IR. Das geht vermutlich aus dem Untertitel besser hervor, doch dieser erschien den Autoren wohl zu trocken. Schade, denn "The Turn" gibt es z.B. in unserem Verbundkatalog bereits, allerdings mit dem Zusatz "from the Cold War to a new era; the United States and the Soviet Union 1983-1990". Der Verlag, der abgesehen davon ein gediegenes (wenn auch nicht gerade wohlfeiles) Produkt vorgelegt hat, hätte derlei unscharfe Duplizierend besser verhindert. Ungeachtet dessen empfehle ich dieses wichtige Buch ohne Vorbehalt zur Anschaffung; es sollte in keiner grösseren Bibliothek fehlen."

0.0029719393 = product of:
  0.03566327 = sum of:
    0.014641492 = product of:
      0.043924473 = sum of:
        0.043924473 = weight(_text_:p in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043924473 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.55615246 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.021021776 = product of:
      0.04204355 = sum of:
        0.04204355 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04204355 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(2/24)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.129-144

0.0010557787 = product of:
  0.012669344 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.00744024 = product of:
      0.01488048 = sum of:
        0.01488048 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01488048 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(2/24)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

4.3795368E-4 = product of:
  0.010510888 = sum of:
    0.010510888 = product of:
      0.021021776 = sum of:
        0.021021776 = weight(_text_:29 in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021021776 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5907, 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=5907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

29. 9.2001 14:01:42

3.7538886E-4 = product of:
  0.009009332 = sum of:
    0.009009332 = product of:
      0.018018665 = sum of:
        0.018018665 = weight(_text_:29 in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018018665 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 996, 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=996)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

27.12.2007 11:59:29

3.72012E-4 = product of:
  0.008928288 = sum of:
    0.008928288 = product of:
      0.017856576 = sum of:
        0.017856576 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017856576 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

3.72012E-4 = product of:
  0.008928288 = sum of:
    0.008928288 = product of:
      0.017856576 = sum of:
        0.017856576 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017856576 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

3.1001001E-4 = product of:
  0.00744024 = sum of:
    0.00744024 = product of:
      0.01488048 = sum of:
        0.01488048 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01488048 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, 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=1369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42

3.0503108E-4 = product of:
  0.007320746 = sum of:
    0.007320746 = product of:
      0.021962237 = sum of:
        0.021962237 = weight(_text_:p in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021962237 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 3901, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3901)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

There is a well-known gap between systems-oriented information retrieval (IR) and user-oriented IR, which cognitive IR seeks to bridge. It is therefore interesting to analyze approaches at the level of frameworks, models, and study designs. This article is an exercise in such an analysis, focusing on two significant approaches to IR: the lab IR approach and P. Ingwersen's (1996) cognitive IR approach. The article focuses on their research frameworks, models, hypotheses, laws and theories, study designs, and possible contributions. The two approaches are quite different, which becomes apparent in the use of Independent, controlled, and dependent variables in the study designs of each approach. Thus, each approach is capable of contributing very differently to understanding and developing information access. The article also discusses integrating the approaches at the study-design level.

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=1040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 1040, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1040)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.1787935E-4 = product of:
  0.0052291043 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

Purpose - To show that stem generation compares well with lemmatization as a morphological tool for a highly inflectional language for IR purposes in a best-match retrieval system. Design/methodology/approach - Effects of three different morphological methods - lemmatization, stemming and stem production - for Finnish are compared in a probabilistic IR environment (INQUERY). Evaluation is done using a four-point relevance scale which is partitioned differently in different test settings. Findings - Results show that stem production, a lighter method than morphological lemmatization, compares well with lemmatization in a best-match IR environment. Differences in performance between stem production and lemmatization are small and they are not statistically significant in most of the tested settings. It is also shown that hitherto a rather neglected method of morphological processing for Finnish, stemming, performs reasonably well although the stemmer used - a Porter stemmer implementation - is far from optimal for a morphologically complex language like Finnish. In another series of tests, the effects of compound splitting and derivational expansion of queries are tested. Practical implications - Usefulness of morphological lemmatization and stem generation for IR purposes can be estimated with many factors. On the average P-R level they seem to behave very close to each other in a probabilistic IR system. Thus, the choice of the used method with highly inflectional languages needs to be estimated along other dimensions too. Originality/value - Results are achieved using Finnish as an example of a highly inflectional language. The results are of interest for anyone who is interested in processing of morphological variation of a highly inflected language for IR purposes.

2.1787935E-4 = product of:
  0.0052291043 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=4545,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 4545, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4545)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.1787935E-4 = product of:
  0.0052291043 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.1787935E-4 = product of:
  0.0052291043 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.1787935E-4 = product of:
  0.0052291043 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

1.7430348E-4 = product of:
  0.0041832835 = sum of:
    0.0041832835 = product of:
      0.01254985 = sum of:
        0.01254985 = weight(_text_:p in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01254985 = score(doc=643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)