Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Klassifizieren"
  1. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.27
    0.27286285 = sum of:
      0.08046506 = product of:
        0.24139518 = sum of:
          0.24139518 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.24139518 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.429515 = queryWeight, product of:
                8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05066224 = queryNorm
              0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
        0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.19239777 = sum of:
        0.15121357 = weight(_text_:mining in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15121357 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.5289795 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.0411842 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0411842 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.
    Date
    8. 1.2013 10:22:32
    Source
    Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2004), 1-4 November 2004, Brighton, UK
  2. Fong, A.C.M.: Mining a Web citation database for document clustering (2002) 0.09
    0.088207915 = product of:
      0.17641583 = sum of:
        0.17641583 = product of:
          0.35283166 = sum of:
            0.35283166 = weight(_text_:mining in 3940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.35283166 = score(doc=3940,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                1.2342855 = fieldWeight in 3940, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3940)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Theme
    Data Mining
  3. Mengle, S.; Goharian, N.: Passage detection using text classification (2009) 0.06
    0.06171181 = product of:
      0.12342362 = sum of:
        0.12342362 = sum of:
          0.08910345 = weight(_text_:mining in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.08910345 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05066224 = queryNorm
              0.31170416 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
          0.034320172 = weight(_text_:22 in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.034320172 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05066224 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Passages can be hidden within a text to circumvent their disallowed transfer. Such release of compartmentalized information is of concern to all corporate and governmental organizations. Passage retrieval is well studied; we posit, however, that passage detection is not. Passage retrieval is the determination of the degree of relevance of blocks of text, namely passages, comprising a document. Rather than determining the relevance of a document in its entirety, passage retrieval determines the relevance of the individual passages. As such, modified traditional information-retrieval techniques compare terms found in user queries with the individual passages to determine a similarity score for passages of interest. In passage detection, passages are classified into predetermined categories. More often than not, passage detection techniques are deployed to detect hidden paragraphs in documents. That is, to hide information, documents are injected with hidden text into passages. Rather than matching query terms against passages to determine their relevance, using text-mining techniques, the passages are classified. Those documents with hidden passages are defined as infected. Thus, simply stated, passage retrieval is the search for passages relevant to a user query, while passage detection is the classification of passages. That is, in passage detection, passages are labeled with one or more categories from a set of predetermined categories. We present a keyword-based dynamic passage approach (KDP) and demonstrate that KDP outperforms statistically significantly (99% confidence) the other document-splitting approaches by 12% to 18% in the passage detection and passage category-prediction tasks. Furthermore, we evaluate the effects of the feature selection, passage length, ambiguous passages, and finally training-data category distribution on passage-detection accuracy.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:14:43
  4. Liu, X.; Yu, S.; Janssens, F.; Glänzel, W.; Moreau, Y.; Moor, B.de: Weighted hybrid clustering by combining text mining and bibliometrics on a large-scale journal database (2010) 0.05
    0.046299513 = product of:
      0.09259903 = sum of:
        0.09259903 = product of:
          0.18519805 = sum of:
            0.18519805 = weight(_text_:mining in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.18519805 = score(doc=3464,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.64786494 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    We propose a new hybrid clustering framework to incorporate text mining with bibliometrics in journal set analysis. The framework integrates two different approaches: clustering ensemble and kernel-fusion clustering. To improve the flexibility and the efficiency of processing large-scale data, we propose an information-based weighting scheme to leverage the effect of multiple data sources in hybrid clustering. Three different algorithms are extended by the proposed weighting scheme and they are employed on a large journal set retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The clustering performance of the proposed algorithms is systematically evaluated using multiple evaluation methods, and they were cross-compared with alternative methods. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed weighted hybrid clustering strategy is superior to other methods in clustering performance and efficiency. The proposed approach also provides a more refined structural mapping of journal sets, which is useful for monitoring and detecting new trends in different scientific fields.
    Theme
    Data Mining
  5. Teich, E.; Degaetano-Ortlieb, S.; Fankhauser, P.; Kermes, H.; Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.: ¬The linguistic construal of disciplinarity : a data-mining approach using register features (2016) 0.05
    0.046299513 = product of:
      0.09259903 = sum of:
        0.09259903 = product of:
          0.18519805 = sum of:
            0.18519805 = weight(_text_:mining in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.18519805 = score(doc=3015,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.64786494 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    We analyze the linguistic evolution of selected scientific disciplines over a 30-year time span (1970s to 2000s). Our focus is on four highly specialized disciplines at the boundaries of computer science that emerged during that time: computational linguistics, bioinformatics, digital construction, and microelectronics. Our analysis is driven by the question whether these disciplines develop a distinctive language use-both individually and collectively-over the given time period. The data set is the English Scientific Text Corpus (scitex), which includes texts from the 1970s/1980s and early 2000s. Our theoretical basis is register theory. In terms of methods, we combine corpus-based methods of feature extraction (various aggregated features [part-of-speech based], n-grams, lexico-grammatical patterns) and automatic text classification. The results of our research are directly relevant to the study of linguistic variation and languages for specific purposes (LSP) and have implications for various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, for example, authorship attribution, text mining, or training NLP tools.
    Theme
    Data Mining
  6. Brückner, T.; Dambeck, H.: Sortierautomaten : Grundlagen der Textklassifizierung (2003) 0.04
    0.03564138 = product of:
      0.07128276 = sum of:
        0.07128276 = product of:
          0.14256552 = sum of:
            0.14256552 = weight(_text_:mining in 2398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.14256552 = score(doc=2398,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.49872664 = fieldWeight in 2398, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2398)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Theme
    Data Mining
  7. Wu, K.J.; Chen, M.-C.; Sun, Y.: Automatic topics discovery from hyperlinked documents (2004) 0.03
    0.026731037 = product of:
      0.053462073 = sum of:
        0.053462073 = product of:
          0.10692415 = sum of:
            0.10692415 = weight(_text_:mining in 2563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10692415 = score(doc=2563,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.37404498 = fieldWeight in 2563, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2563)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Theme
    Data Mining
  8. Ko, Y.: ¬A new term-weighting scheme for text classification using the odds of positive and negative class probabilities (2015) 0.03
    0.026731037 = product of:
      0.053462073 = sum of:
        0.053462073 = product of:
          0.10692415 = sum of:
            0.10692415 = weight(_text_:mining in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10692415 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.37404498 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Text classification (TC) is a core technique for text mining and information retrieval. It has been applied to many applications in many different research and industrial areas. Term-weighting schemes assign an appropriate weight to each term to obtain a high TC performance. Although term weighting is one of the important modules for TC and TC has different peculiarities from those in information retrieval, many term-weighting schemes used in information retrieval, such as term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf), have been used in TC in the same manner. The peculiarity of TC that differs most from information retrieval is the existence of class information. This article proposes a new term-weighting scheme that uses class information using positive and negative class distributions. As a result, the proposed scheme, log tf-TRR, consistently performs better than do other schemes using class information as well as traditional schemes such as tf-idf.
  9. Ma, Z.; Sun, A.; Cong, G.: On predicting the popularity of newly emerging hashtags in Twitter (2013) 0.02
    0.022275863 = product of:
      0.044551726 = sum of:
        0.044551726 = product of:
          0.08910345 = sum of:
            0.08910345 = weight(_text_:mining in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08910345 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.31170416 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Theme
    Data Mining
  10. Subramanian, S.; Shafer, K.E.: Clustering (2001) 0.02
    0.0205921 = product of:
      0.0411842 = sum of:
        0.0411842 = product of:
          0.0823684 = sum of:
            0.0823684 = weight(_text_:22 in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0823684 = score(doc=1046,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1046, 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=1046)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    5. 5.2003 14:17:22
  11. Altinel, B.; Ganiz, M.C.: Semantic text classification : a survey of past and recent advances (2018) 0.02
    0.01782069 = product of:
      0.03564138 = sum of:
        0.03564138 = product of:
          0.07128276 = sum of:
            0.07128276 = weight(_text_:mining in 5051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07128276 = score(doc=5051,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.24936332 = fieldWeight in 5051, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5051)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Automatic text classification is the task of organizing documents into pre-determined classes, generally using machine learning algorithms. Generally speaking, it is one of the most important methods to organize and make use of the gigantic amounts of information that exist in unstructured textual format. Text classification is a widely studied research area of language processing and text mining. In traditional text classification, a document is represented as a bag of words where the words in other words terms are cut from their finer context i.e. their location in a sentence or in a document. Only the broader context of document is used with some type of term frequency information in the vector space. Consequently, semantics of words that can be inferred from the finer context of its location in a sentence and its relations with neighboring words are usually ignored. However, meaning of words, semantic connections between words, documents and even classes are obviously important since methods that capture semantics generally reach better classification performances. Several surveys have been published to analyze diverse approaches for the traditional text classification methods. Most of these surveys cover application of different semantic term relatedness methods in text classification up to a certain degree. However, they do not specifically target semantic text classification algorithms and their advantages over the traditional text classification. In order to fill this gap, we undertake a comprehensive discussion of semantic text classification vs. traditional text classification. This survey explores the past and recent advancements in semantic text classification and attempts to organize existing approaches under five fundamental categories; domain knowledge-based approaches, corpus-based approaches, deep learning based approaches, word/character sequence enhanced approaches and linguistic enriched approaches. Furthermore, this survey highlights the advantages of semantic text classification algorithms over the traditional text classification algorithms.
  12. HaCohen-Kerner, Y. et al.: Classification using various machine learning methods and combinations of key-phrases and visual features (2016) 0.02
    0.017160086 = product of:
      0.034320172 = sum of:
        0.034320172 = product of:
          0.068640344 = sum of:
            0.068640344 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.068640344 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = 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)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    1. 2.2016 18:25:22
  13. Bock, H.-H.: Datenanalyse zur Strukturierung und Ordnung von Information (1989) 0.01
    0.012012059 = product of:
      0.024024118 = sum of:
        0.024024118 = product of:
          0.048048235 = sum of:
            0.048048235 = weight(_text_:22 in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048048235 = score(doc=141,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 141, 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=141)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.1-22
  14. Dubin, D.: Dimensions and discriminability (1998) 0.01
    0.012012059 = product of:
      0.024024118 = sum of:
        0.024024118 = product of:
          0.048048235 = sum of:
            0.048048235 = weight(_text_:22 in 2338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048048235 = score(doc=2338,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2338, 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=2338)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
  15. Jenkins, C.: Automatic classification of Web resources using Java and Dewey Decimal Classification (1998) 0.01
    0.012012059 = product of:
      0.024024118 = sum of:
        0.024024118 = product of:
          0.048048235 = sum of:
            0.048048235 = weight(_text_:22 in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048048235 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1673, 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=1673)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
  16. Yoon, Y.; Lee, C.; Lee, G.G.: ¬An effective procedure for constructing a hierarchical text classification system (2006) 0.01
    0.012012059 = product of:
      0.024024118 = sum of:
        0.024024118 = product of:
          0.048048235 = sum of:
            0.048048235 = weight(_text_:22 in 5273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048048235 = score(doc=5273,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5273, 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=5273)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:24:52
  17. Yi, K.: Automatic text classification using library classification schemes : trends, issues and challenges (2007) 0.01
    0.012012059 = product of:
      0.024024118 = sum of:
        0.024024118 = product of:
          0.048048235 = sum of:
            0.048048235 = weight(_text_:22 in 2560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048048235 = score(doc=2560,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2560, 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=2560)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 9.2008 18:31:54
  18. Liu, R.-L.: Context recognition for hierarchical text classification (2009) 0.01
    0.01029605 = product of:
      0.0205921 = sum of:
        0.0205921 = product of:
          0.0411842 = sum of:
            0.0411842 = weight(_text_:22 in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0411842 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2760, 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=2760)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:11:54
  19. Pfeffer, M.: Automatische Vergabe von RVK-Notationen mittels fallbasiertem Schließen (2009) 0.01
    0.01029605 = product of:
      0.0205921 = sum of:
        0.0205921 = product of:
          0.0411842 = sum of:
            0.0411842 = weight(_text_:22 in 3051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0411842 = score(doc=3051,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3051, 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=3051)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 8.2009 19:51:28
  20. Zhu, W.Z.; Allen, R.B.: Document clustering using the LSI subspace signature model (2013) 0.01
    0.01029605 = product of:
      0.0205921 = sum of:
        0.0205921 = product of:
          0.0411842 = sum of:
            0.0411842 = weight(_text_:22 in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0411842 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05066224 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 690, 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=690)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    23. 3.2013 13:22:36