Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  1. Aho, A.; Corasick, M.: Efficient string matching : an aid to bibliographic search (1975) 0.02 
    0.019003816 = product of:
  0.22804578 = sum of:
    0.22804578 = weight(_text_:340 in 3506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22804578 = score(doc=3506,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2038881 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.230979 = idf(docFreq=86, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028196473 = queryNorm
        1.118485 = fieldWeight in 3506, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.230979 = idf(docFreq=86, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3506)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Source
    Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery. 18(1975), S.333-340
  2. Behnert, C.; Borst, T.: Neue Formen der Relevanz-Sortierung in bibliothekarischen Informationssystemen : das DFG-Projekt LibRank (2015) 0.01 
    0.0118424315 = product of:
  0.14210917 = sum of:
    0.14210917 = weight(_text_:wirtschaftswissenschaften in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14210917 = score(doc=5392,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17904139 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.3497796 = idf(docFreq=209, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028196473 = queryNorm
        0.79372245 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.3497796 = idf(docFreq=209, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Abstract
    Das von der DFG geförderte Projekt LibRank erforscht neue Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme, die aufbauend auf Erkenntnissen aus dem Bereich Websuche qualitätsinduzierende Faktoren wie z. B. Aktualität, Popularität und Verfügbarkeit von einzelnen Medien berücksichtigen. Die konzipierten Verfahren werden im Kontext eines in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften häufig genutzten Rechercheportals (EconBiz) entwickelt und in einem Testsystem systematisch evaluiert. Es werden Rankingfaktoren, die für den Bibliotheksbereich von besonderem Interesse sind, vorgestellt und exemplarisch Probleme und Herausforderungen aufgezeigt.
    Field
    Wirtschaftswissenschaften
  3. Klas, C.-P.; Fuhr, N.; Schaefer, A.: Evaluating strategic support for information access in the DAFFODIL system (2004) 0.01 
    0.010055896 = product of:
  0.06033537 = sum of:
    0.048874673 = weight(_text_:organisation in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048874673 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14418204 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.113478 = idf(docFreq=722, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028196473 = queryNorm
        0.33897892 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.113478 = idf(docFreq=722, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
    0.011460698 = product of:
      0.022921396 = sum of:
        0.022921396 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921396 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
    Abstract
    The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.
    Date
    16.11.2008 16:22:48
  4. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing als Re-Ranking-Ansatz in Literaturinformationssystemen (2011) 0.01 
    0.0062803975 = product of:
  0.07536477 = sum of:
    0.07536477 = weight(_text_:wirtschaftswissenschaften in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07536477 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17904139 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.3497796 = idf(docFreq=209, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028196473 = queryNorm
        0.4209349 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.3497796 = idf(docFreq=209, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel wird ein Re-Ranking-Ansatz für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, der die Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur messbar verbessern kann. Das nichttextorientierte Rankingverfahren Bradfordizing wird eingeführt und anschließend im empirischen Teil des Artikels bzgl. der Effektivität für typische fachbezogene Recherche-Topics evaluiert. Dem Bradford Law of Scattering (BLS), auf dem Bradfordizing basiert, liegt zugrunde, dass sich die Literatur zu einem beliebigen Fachgebiet bzw. -thema in Zonen unterschiedlicher Dokumentenkonzentration verteilt. Dem Kernbereich mit hoher Konzentration der Literatur folgen Bereiche mit mittlerer und geringer Konzentration. Bradfordizing sortiert bzw. rankt eine Dokumentmenge damit nach den sogenannten Kernzeitschriften. Der Retrievaltest mit 164 intellektuell bewerteten Fragestellungen in Fachdatenbanken aus den Bereichen Sozial- und Politikwissenschaften, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin zeigt, dass die Dokumente der Kernzeitschriften signifikant häufiger relevant bewertet werden als Dokumente der zweiten Dokumentzone bzw. den Peripherie-Zeitschriften. Die Implementierung von Bradfordizing und weiteren Re-Rankingverfahren liefert unmittelbare Mehrwerte für den Nutzer.
  5. Mayr, P.: Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing für die verteilte Suche in Digitalen Bibliotheken (2009) 0.00 
    0.0041869315 = product of:
  0.050243177 = sum of:
    0.050243177 = weight(_text_:wirtschaftswissenschaften in 4302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050243177 = score(doc=4302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17904139 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.3497796 = idf(docFreq=209, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028196473 = queryNorm
        0.28062326 = fieldWeight in 4302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.3497796 = idf(docFreq=209, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4302)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Abstract
    Trotz großer Dokumentmengen für datenbankübergreifende Literaturrecherchen erwarten akademische Nutzer einen möglichst hohen Anteil an relevanten und qualitativen Dokumenten in den Trefferergebnissen. Insbesondere die Reihenfolge und Struktur der gelisteten Ergebnisse (Ranking) spielt, neben dem direkten Volltextzugriff auf die Dokumente, inzwischen eine entscheidende Rolle beim Design von Suchsystemen. Nutzer erwarten weiterhin flexible Informationssysteme, die es unter anderem zulassen, Einfluss auf das Ranking der Dokumente zu nehmen bzw. alternative Rankingverfahren zu verwenden. In dieser Arbeit werden zwei Mehrwertverfahren für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, die die typischen Probleme bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur behandeln und damit die Recherchesituation messbar verbessern können. Die beiden Mehrwertdienste semantische Heterogenitätsbehandlung am Beispiel Crosskonkordanzen und Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing, die in unterschiedlichen Phasen der Suche zum Einsatz kommen, werden hier ausführlich beschrieben und im empirischen Teil der Arbeit bzgl. der Effektivität für typische fachbezogene Recherchen evaluiert. Vorrangiges Ziel der Promotion ist es, zu untersuchen, ob das hier vorgestellte alternative Re-Rankingverfahren Bradfordizing im Anwendungsbereich bibliographischer Datenbanken zum einen operabel ist und zum anderen voraussichtlich gewinnbringend in Informationssystemen eingesetzt und dem Nutzer angeboten werden kann. Für die Tests wurden Fragestellungen und Daten aus zwei Evaluationsprojekten (CLEF und KoMoHe) verwendet. Die intellektuell bewerteten Dokumente stammen aus insgesamt sieben wissenschaftlichen Fachdatenbanken der Fächer Sozialwissenschaften, Politikwissenschaft, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin. Die Evaluation der Crosskonkordanzen (insgesamt 82 Fragestellungen) zeigt, dass sich die Retrievalergebnisse signifikant für alle Crosskonkordanzen verbessern; es zeigt sich zudem, dass interdisziplinäre Crosskonkordanzen den stärksten (positiven) Effekt auf die Suchergebnisse haben. Die Evaluation des Re-Ranking nach Bradfordizing (insgesamt 164 Fragestellungen) zeigt, dass die Dokumente der Kernzone (Kernzeitschriften) für die meisten Testreihen eine signifikant höhere Precision als Dokumente der Zone 2 und Zone 3 (Peripheriezeitschriften) ergeben. Sowohl für Zeitschriften als auch für Monographien kann dieser Relevanzvorteil nach Bradfordizing auf einer sehr breiten Basis von Themen und Fragestellungen an zwei unabhängigen Dokumentkorpora empirisch nachgewiesen werden.
  6. Robertson, S.E.; Sparck Jones, K.: Simple, proven approaches to text retrieval (1997) 0.00 
    0.0033940747 = product of:
  0.040728897 = sum of:
    0.040728897 = weight(_text_:organisation in 4532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040728897 = score(doc=4532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14418204 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.113478 = idf(docFreq=722, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028196473 = queryNorm
        0.28248245 = fieldWeight in 4532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.113478 = idf(docFreq=722, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4532)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Abstract
    This technical note describes straightforward techniques for document indexing and retrieval that have been solidly established through extensive testing and are easy to apply. They are useful for many different types of text material, are viable for very large files, and have the advantage that they do not require special skills or training for searching, but are easy for end users. The document and text retrieval methods described here have a sound theoretical basis, are well established by extensive testing, and the ideas involved are now implemented in some commercial retrieval systems. Testing in the last few years has, in particular, shown that the methods presented here work very well with full texts, not only title and abstracts, and with large files of texts containing three quarters of a million documents. These tests, the TREC Tests (see Harman 1993 - 1997; IP&M 1995), have been rigorous comparative evaluations involving many different approaches to information retrieval. These techniques depend an the use of simple terms for indexing both request and document texts; an term weighting exploiting statistical information about term occurrences; an scoring for request-document matching, using these weights, to obtain a ranked search output; and an relevance feedback to modify request weights or term sets in iterative searching. The normal implementation is via an inverted file organisation using a term list with linked document identifiers, plus counting data, and pointers to the actual texts. The user's request can be a word list, phrases, sentences or extended text.
  7. Voorhees, E.M.: Implementing agglomerative hierarchic clustering algorithms for use in document retrieval (1986) 0.00 
    0.002546822 = product of:
  0.030561863 = sum of:
    0.030561863 = product of:
      0.061123725 = sum of:
        0.061123725 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061123725 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476
  8. Smeaton, A.F.; Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬The retrieval effects of query expansion on a feedback document retrieval system (1983) 0.00 
    0.0022284691 = product of:
  0.02674163 = sum of:
    0.02674163 = product of:
      0.05348326 = sum of:
        0.05348326 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05348326 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, 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=2134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    30. 3.2001 13:32:22
  9. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.00 
    0.0022284691 = product of:
  0.02674163 = sum of:
    0.02674163 = product of:
      0.05348326 = sum of:
        0.05348326 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05348326 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
  10. Fuhr, N.: Ranking-Experimente mit gewichteter Indexierung (1986) 0.00 
    0.0019101164 = product of:
  0.022921396 = sum of:
    0.022921396 = product of:
      0.045842793 = sum of:
        0.045842793 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045842793 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, 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=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    14. 6.2015 22:12:44
  11. Fuhr, N.: Rankingexperimente mit gewichteter Indexierung (1986) 0.00 
    0.0019101164 = product of:
  0.022921396 = sum of:
    0.022921396 = product of:
      0.045842793 = sum of:
        0.045842793 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045842793 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, 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=2051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    14. 6.2015 22:12:56
  12. MacFarlane, A.; Robertson, S.E.; McCann, J.A.: Parallel computing for passage retrieval (2004) 0.00 
    0.001273411 = product of:
  0.015280931 = sum of:
    0.015280931 = product of:
      0.030561863 = sum of:
        0.030561863 = weight(_text_:22 in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030561863 = score(doc=5108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 18:30:22
  13. Faloutsos, C.: Signature files (1992) 0.00 
    0.001273411 = product of:
  0.015280931 = sum of:
    0.015280931 = product of:
      0.030561863 = sum of:
        0.030561863 = weight(_text_:22 in 3499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030561863 = score(doc=3499,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3499, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3499)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    7. 5.1999 15:22:48
  14. Losada, D.E.; Barreiro, A.: Emebedding term similarity and inverse document frequency into a logical model of information retrieval (2003) 0.00 
    0.001273411 = product of:
  0.015280931 = sum of:
    0.015280931 = product of:
      0.030561863 = sum of:
        0.030561863 = weight(_text_:22 in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030561863 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1422, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    22. 3.2003 19:27:23
  15. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.00 
    0.001273411 = product of:
  0.015280931 = sum of:
    0.015280931 = product of:
      0.030561863 = sum of:
        0.030561863 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030561863 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  16. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.00 
    0.001273411 = product of:
  0.015280931 = sum of:
    0.015280931 = product of:
      0.030561863 = sum of:
        0.030561863 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030561863 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  17. Ravana, S.D.; Rajagopal, P.; Balakrishnan, V.: Ranking retrieval systems using pseudo relevance judgments (2015) 0.00 
    0.0011255469 = product of:
  0.013506562 = sum of:
    0.013506562 = product of:
      0.027013125 = sum of:
        0.027013125 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027013125 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    18. 9.2018 18:22:56
  18. Chang, C.-H.; Hsu, C.-C.: Integrating query expansion and conceptual relevance feedback for personalized Web information retrieval (1998) 0.00 
    0.0011142346 = product of:
  0.013370815 = sum of:
    0.013370815 = product of:
      0.02674163 = sum of:
        0.02674163 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02674163 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
  19. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.00 
    0.0011142346 = product of:
  0.013370815 = sum of:
    0.013370815 = product of:
      0.02674163 = sum of:
        0.02674163 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02674163 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  20. Joss, M.W.; Wszola, S.: ¬The engines that can : text search and retrieval software, their strategies, and vendors (1996) 0.00 
    9.550582E-4 = product of:
  0.011460698 = sum of:
    0.011460698 = product of:
      0.022921396 = sum of:
        0.022921396 = weight(_text_:22 in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921396 = score(doc=5123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098739244 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028196473 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5123, 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=5123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Date
    12. 9.1996 13:56:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 27
  • d 7

Types

  • a 30
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications