Search (602 results, page 1 of 31)

0.08095287 = product of:
  0.16190574 = sum of:
    0.16190574 = sum of:
      0.11367553 = weight(_text_:90 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11367553 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.415788 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
      0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048230216 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 54(2010) no.2, S.90-114

0.08095287 = product of:
  0.16190574 = sum of:
    0.16190574 = sum of:
      0.11367553 = weight(_text_:90 in 5244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11367553 = score(doc=5244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.415788 = fieldWeight in 5244, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5244)
      0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 5244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048230216 = score(doc=5244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5244, 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=5244)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Vor der EU-Wahl veröffentlichen 90 "Webstars" eine Wahlempfehlung: "Wählt nicht die CDU/CSU, wählt nicht die SPD und schon gar nicht die AfD". Die Reaktionen sind der eigentliche Aufreger. Bezug zu: https://youtu.be/4Y1lZQsyuSQ und https://youtu.be/Xpg84NjCr9c.

Content

Vgl. auch: Dörner, S.:"CDU-Zerstörer" Rezo: Es kamen "Diskreditierung, Lügen, Trump-Wordings und keine inhaltliche Auseinandersetzung" [22. Mai 2019]. Interview mit Rezo. Unter: https://www.heise.de/tp/features/CDU-Zerstoerer-Rezo-Es-kamen-Diskreditierung-Luegen-Trump-Wordings-und-keine-inhaltliche-4428522.html?view=print [http://www.heise.de/-4428522].

0.06938817 = product of:
  0.13877635 = sum of:
    0.13877635 = sum of:
      0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09743616 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
      0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041340183 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.06495834 = product of:
  0.12991668 = sum of:
    0.12991668 = sum of:
      0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08119681 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.048719876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048719876 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, 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=1962)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The article discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and/or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.90-101

0.05782348 = product of:
  0.11564696 = sum of:
    0.11564696 = sum of:
      0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 4793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08119681 = score(doc=4793,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 4793, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4793)
      0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034450155 = score(doc=4793,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4793, 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=4793)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.81-90

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.05782348 = product of:
  0.11564696 = sum of:
    0.11564696 = sum of:
      0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08119681 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
      0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034450155 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:21:46

0.040598404 = product of:
  0.08119681 = sum of:
    0.08119681 = product of:
      0.16239361 = sum of:
        0.16239361 = weight(_text_:90 in 4423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16239361 = score(doc=4423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.5939829 = fieldWeight in 4423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Gehirn & Geist Dossier. 2018. H.3, S.90-95

0.04038491 = product of:
  0.08076982 = sum of:
    0.08076982 = product of:
      0.24230945 = sum of:
        0.24230945 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24230945 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43114176 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.04038491 = product of:
  0.08076982 = sum of:
    0.08076982 = product of:
      0.24230945 = sum of:
        0.24230945 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24230945 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43114176 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.034694087 = product of:
  0.06938817 = sum of:
    0.06938817 = sum of:
      0.04871808 = weight(_text_:90 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04871808 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.17819485 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.020670092 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020670092 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Bill Howe and his colleagues at the University of Washington, in Seattle, decided to find out. First, they trained a computer algorithm to distinguish between various sorts of figures-which they defined as diagrams, equations, photographs, plots (such as bar charts and scatter graphs) and tables. They exposed their algorithm to between 400 and 600 images of each of these types of figure until it could distinguish them with an accuracy greater than 90%. Then they set it loose on the more-than-650,000 papers (containing more than 10m figures) stored on PubMed Central, an online archive of biomedical-research articles. To measure each paper's influence, they calculated its article-level Eigenfactor score-a modified version of the PageRank algorithm Google uses to provide the most relevant results for internet searches. Eigenfactor scoring gives a better measure than simply noting the number of times a paper is cited elsewhere, because it weights citations by their influence. A citation in a paper that is itself highly cited is worth more than one in a paper that is not.
As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.

0.032478724 = product of:
  0.06495745 = sum of:
    0.06495745 = product of:
      0.1299149 = sum of:
        0.1299149 = weight(_text_:90 in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1299149 = score(doc=945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.4751863 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2013, H.2, S.90-97

0.02891174 = product of:
  0.05782348 = sum of:
    0.05782348 = sum of:
      0.040598404 = weight(_text_:90 in 4567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040598404 = score(doc=4567,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.14849572 = fieldWeight in 4567, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4567)
      0.017225077 = weight(_text_:22 in 4567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017225077 = score(doc=4567,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050854117 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4567, 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=4567)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Dennoch bemühe man sich, mit Förderprojekten und Workshops für mehr Motivation zu sorgen und neue Zielgruppen zu erschließen. So werde das Mentorenprogramm, in dessen Rahmen man sich von erfahrenen Autoren bei den ersten Schritten in der Wikipedia-Welt begleitet lassen kann, schon von 90 Prozent der Neueinsteiger angenommen. Stolz ist man bei Wikimedia auf das Projekt "Silberwissen", mit dem vor allem ältere Menschen angesprochen werden sollen. "Das Wissen älterer Generationen könnte Wikipedia bereichern und neue Perspektiven eröffnen", hofft Schoneville. Vielleicht wirkt sich diese Lebenserfahrung ja irgendwann einmal auch auf die in der Wikipedia-Gemeinde herrschenden Umgangsformen aus. Zu wünschen wäre es. Schließlich, und da sind sich ausnahmsweise einmal alle Beteiligten einig, gibt es zu Wikipedia mit seinen beinahe konkurrenz- weil kostenlosen Angeboten derzeit kaum echte Alternativen."

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.028707406 = product of:
  0.05741481 = sum of:
    0.05741481 = product of:
      0.11482962 = sum of:
        0.11482962 = weight(_text_:90 in 5263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11482962 = score(doc=5263,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.42000932 = fieldWeight in 5263, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2019-2-90.

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.2, S.90-103

0.028707406 = product of:
  0.05741481 = sum of:
    0.05741481 = product of:
      0.11482962 = sum of:
        0.11482962 = weight(_text_:90 in 5327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11482962 = score(doc=5327,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.42000932 = fieldWeight in 5327, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article we examine automated language-independent authorship verification using text examples in several representative Indo-European languages, in cases when the examined texts belong to an open set of authors, that is, the author is unknown. We showcase the set of developed language-dependent and language-independent features, the model of training examples, consisting of pairs of equal features for known and unknown texts, and the appropriate method of authorship verification. An authorship verification accuracy greater than 90% was accomplished via the application of stylometric methods on four different languages (English, Greek, Spanish, and Dutch, while the verification for Dutch is slightly lower). For the multilingual case, the highest authorship verification accuracy using basic machine-learning methods, over 90%, was achieved by the application of the kNN and SVM-SMO methods, using the feature selection method SVM-RFE. The improvement in authorship verification accuracy in multilingual cases, over 94%, was accomplished via ensemble learning methods, with the MultiboostAB method being a bit more accurate, but Random Forest is generally more appropriate

0.028418882 = product of:
  0.056837764 = sum of:
    0.056837764 = product of:
      0.11367553 = sum of:
        0.11367553 = weight(_text_:90 in 1833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11367553 = score(doc=1833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.415788 = fieldWeight in 1833, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 68(2015) H.1, S.79-90

0.028418882 = product of:
  0.056837764 = sum of:
    0.056837764 = product of:
      0.11367553 = sum of:
        0.11367553 = weight(_text_:90 in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11367553 = score(doc=2459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.415788 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Perspektive Bibliothek. 3(2014) H.2, S.61-90

0.024359938 = product of:
  0.048719876 = sum of:
    0.048719876 = product of:
      0.09743975 = sum of:
        0.09743975 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09743975 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

0.024359938 = product of:
  0.048719876 = sum of:
    0.048719876 = product of:
      0.09743975 = sum of:
        0.09743975 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09743975 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.024359938 = product of:
  0.048719876 = sum of:
    0.048719876 = product of:
      0.09743975 = sum of:
        0.09743975 = weight(_text_:22 in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09743975 = score(doc=3975,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2018 12:06:44
22. 2.2018 12:13:53

0.02435904 = product of:
  0.04871808 = sum of:
    0.04871808 = product of:
      0.09743616 = sum of:
        0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09743616 = score(doc=3457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Arabic has a complex structure, which makes it difficult to apply natural language processing (NLP). Much research on Arabic NLP (ANLP) does exist; however, it is not as mature as that of other languages. Finding Arabic roots is an important step toward conducting effective research on most of ANLP applications. The authors have studied and compared six root-finding algorithms with success rates of over 90%. All algorithms of this study did not use the same testing corpus and/or benchmarking measures. They unified the testing process by implementing their own algorithm descriptions and building a corpus out of 3823 triliteral roots, applying 73 triliteral patterns, and with 18 affixes, producing around 27.6 million words. They tested the algorithms with the generated corpus and have obtained interesting results; they offer to share the corpus freely for benchmarking and ANLP research.