Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.016772512 = product of:
  0.08386256 = sum of:
    0.08386256 = weight(_text_:context in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08386256 = score(doc=1075,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.475888 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The author reviews the major approaches and central findings of empirical research use studies. 6 major approaches were identified by cross-tabulating 2 criteria: the major context of network use (job-related vs. non-work) and the social level of variables (individual vs. group level). Examples of all types of studies are presented. Themajority of studies can be classified among the surveys focusing on frequencies of service use. From these studies, analyses of job-related are the most advanced both theoretically and methodologically while studies focused on non-work context of use are less established in this sense. The qualitative research settings seem to gain more popularity, thus making the use studies more balanced methodologically. The strengths and weaknesses of the research approaches are assessed and conclusions are drawn concerning the development of more context sensitive analyses of network uses

0.013977095 = product of:
  0.06988547 = sum of:
    0.06988547 = weight(_text_:context in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06988547 = score(doc=3620,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.39657336 = fieldWeight in 3620, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3620)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to elaborate how source preference criteria are defined in the context of everyday projects that require the seeking of problem-specific information. More specifically, to find out how information seekers explain their preference criteria by characterizing the perceived strengths and weaknesses of diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach - The approach takes the form of qualitative content analysis of empirical data gathered by semi-structured interviews with 16 prospective home buyers in 2008. The source preference criteria were elicited by making use of the construct of information source horizon. Findings - Networked sources were favoured most strongly, followed by printed media, human sources and organizational sources. Content of information was the primary source preference criterion. Availability of information was a fairly important criterion, while user characteristics, usability of information and situational factors were fairly marginal in this regard. In the definition of the preference criteria, more emphasis was placed on the perceived strengths than weaknesses of sources. Positive qualities such as "provides updated information" were referred to particularly while judging the relevance of the networked sources. Negative qualities like "outdated information" were primarily associated with printed media and organizational sources. Research limitations/implications - The study is exploratory, drawing on a relatively small sample recruited through a web-based service. Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to prospective home buyers. Practical implications - Prospective home buyers tend to favour web-based information sources and services. They should provide the customers with detailed information about the property, including photos. Originality/value - The paper specifies the picture of user-defined relevance judgment in the context of everyday life information seeking.

0.013694699 = product of:
  0.068473496 = sum of:
    0.068473496 = weight(_text_:context in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068473496 = score(doc=4467,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.38856095 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The author reflects the conceptual and practical questions of network competence in the context of information seeking. Network competence is seen as one of the information-related competences and is defined as the mastery of four major areas: knowledge of information resources available on the Internet, skilled use of the ICT tools to access information, judgment of the relevance of information, and communication. Drawing on the ideas of the social cognitive theory developed by Albert Bandura, a model of network competence is introduced in order to discuss network competence "in action". In the model, network competence is put in practical context by relating five major factors: network competence, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, affective factors such as anxiety, and experiences received from information seeking on the Internet. Particular attention is devoted to the connections between network competence and self-efficacy which denote a person's judgment of his or her ability to organize and execute action, such as finding information on the Web.

0.0129114855 = product of:
  0.064557426 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14-16 August 1996, Tampere, Finland. Ed.: P. Vakkari u.a

0.011412249 = product of:
  0.057061244 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=283,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

As a result of the Internet, electronic networks occupy a more visible place in everyday life. Until the early nineties, the use of electronic networks was limited to a rather small number of people working in enterprises and universities. Since then, the networks have become more accessible for other citizens. Currently at least 60-70 million people all over the world are estimated to use the Internet (Gaines et al., 1997: 990). In 2000, the number of WWW users alone is expected to reach 160 million (Aldridge & Darwood 1997: 283). The rapid growth of network use has given rise to a lot of research needs. For example, what are the main purposes of network use and to what extent may the Internet replace other channels in information seeking? Thus far, the utilization of networks has been mainly surveyed in the USA but, in recent years issues of use have also attracted increasing attention in Western Europe. This study is a continuation of a research project focusing on the ways in which citizens seek information in the context of everyday life (see Savolainen 1995). An attempt is made to analyze how citizens utilize the electronic networks, primarily for non-work purposes. This paper communicates part of an empirical study; a detailed report is available in Finnish (Savolainen 1998b).

0.011412249 = product of:
  0.057061244 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=2034,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The study focuses on the ways in which people define their source preferences in the context of seeking problem-specific information for non-work purposes. The conceptual framework draws on two major concepts, that is, information source horizon and information pathways. The former denotes the ways information sources are mapped in preference order in an imaginary field, while information pathways refers to the sequences in which sources placed on the information source horizon are actually used. The empirical part of the study draws on semi-structured interviews with 18 individuals active in environmental issues. Human sources and the Internet were preferred most strongly in seeking for problem-based information. The major source preferences were content of information, and availability and accessibility. Usability of information sources and user characteristics were mentioned less frequently as preference criteria. Typically, information pathways consisted of the use of 3-4 sources. On average, human and networked sources were favored in the early phases of information seeking. Printed media such as magazines and organizational sources were often used to complement information received from human sources and the Internet. However, the source preferences varied considerably, depending on the requirements of the problem at hand.

0.011412249 = product of:
  0.057061244 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 4046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=4046,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 4046, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4046)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the picture of strategies and tactics for information seeking and searching by focusing on the heuristic elements of such strategies and tactics. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual analysis of a sample of 31 pertinent investigations was conducted to find out how researchers have approached heuristics in the above context since the 1970s. To achieve this, the study draws on the ideas produced within the research programmes on Heuristics and Biases, and Fast and Frugal Heuristics. Findings Researchers have approached the heuristic elements in three major ways. First, these elements are defined as general level constituents of browsing strategies in particular. Second, heuristics are approached as search tips. Third, there are examples of conceptualizations of individual heuristics. Familiarity heuristic suggests that people tend to prefer sources that have worked well in similar situations in the past. Recognition heuristic draws on an all-or-none distinction of the information objects, based on cues such as information scent. Finally, representativeness heuristic is based on recalling similar instances of events or objects and judging their typicality in terms of genres, for example. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on three heuristics only, the findings cannot be generalized to describe the use of all heuristic elements of strategies and tactics for information seeking and searching. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the ways in which the heuristic elements are conceptualized in the context of information seeking and searching. The findings contribute to the elaboration of the conceptual issues of information behavior research.

0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The conceptual issues of information use are discussed by reviewing the major ideas of sense-making methodology developed by Brenda Dervin. Sense-making methodology approaches the phenomena of information use by drawing on the metaphor of gap-bridging. The nature of this metaphor is explored by utilizing the ideas of metaphor analysis suggested by Lakoff and Johnson. First, the source domain of the metaphor is characterized by utilizing the graphical illustrations of sense-making metaphors. Second, the target domain of the metaphor is analyzed by scrutinizing Dervin's key writings on information seeking and use. The metaphor of gap-bridging does not suggest a substantive conception of information use; the metaphor gives methodological and heuristic guidance to posit contextual questions as to how people interpret information to make sense of it. Specifically, these questions focus on the ways in which cognitive, affective, and other elements useful for the sense-making process are constructed and shaped to bridge the gap. Ultimately, the key question of information use studies is how people design information in context.

0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study focuses on the ways in which people define their source preferences in the context of seeking orienting information for nonwork purposes. The conceptual framework of the study combines ideas drawn from social phenomenology and information-seeking studies. The study utilizes Alfred Schutz's model describing the ways in which actors structure everyday knowledge into regions of decreasing relevance. It is assumed that this structuring based on the actor's interest at hand is also reflected in the ways in which an actor prefers information sources and channels. The concept of information source horizon is used to elicit articulations of source preferences. The empirical part of the study draws on interviews with 20 individuals active in environmental issues. Printed media (newspapers), the Internet, and broadcast media (radio, television) were preferred in seeking for orienting information. The major source preferences were content of information, and availability and accessibility. Usability of information sources, user characteristics such as media habits, and situational factors were mentioned less frequently as preference criteria.

0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 3780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3780)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information seeking may be analyzed in two major contexts: job-related and nonwork. The present entry concentrates on nonwork information seeking, more properly called everyday life information seeking (ELIS). Typically, ELIS studies discuss the ways in which people access and use various information sources to meet information needs in areas such as health, consumption, and leisure. The entry specifies the concept of ELIS and characterizes the major ELIS models. They include the Sense-Making approach (Dervin), the Small world theory (Chatman), the ecological model of ELIS (Williamson), ELIS in the context of way of life (Savolainen), the model of information practices (McKenzie), and the concept of information grounds (Fisher). ELIS practices tend to draw on the habitualized use of a limited number of sources which have been found useful in previous use contexts. Since the late 1990s, the Internet has increasingly affected the ELIS practices by providing easily accessible sources. Even though the popularity of the networked sources has grown rapidly they will complement, rather than replace, more traditional sources and channels.

0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=3428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Using Ellis's seminal model of information seeking as an example, this study demonstrates how the elaborations made to the original framework since the late 1980s have contributed to conceptual growth in information-seeking studies. To this end, nine key studies elaborating Ellis's model were scrutinized by conceptual analysis. The findings indicate that the elaborations are based on two main approaches: adding novel, context-specific components in the model and redefining and restructuring the components. The elaborations have contributed to conceptual growth in three major ways. First, integrating formerly separate parts of knowledge; second, generalizing and explaining lower abstraction-level knowledge through higher-level constructs; and third, expanding knowledge by identifying new characteristics of the object of study, that is, information-seeking behavior. Further elaboration of Ellis's model toward a theory would require more focused attempts to test hypotheses in work-related environments in particular.

0.009129799 = product of:
  0.045648996 = sum of:
    0.045648996 = weight(_text_:context in 2319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045648996 = score(doc=2319,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.25904062 = fieldWeight in 2319, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2319)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to specify the role of emotions played in information seeking and sharing taking place in online discussion forum. To this end, an explorative study was made that focussed on consumer awareness. Design/methodology/approach - The study is based on the analysis of a sample of 30 discussion threads containing altogether 1,630 messages available in Canadian Content - a major online platform. The expression of emotions was examined by using the categories of the interaction process analysis (IPA) model. Two research questions were addressed: first, what kind of emotions are expressed in the four functional areas of the IPA model when discussing online about consumer awareness? and second, what is the role of positive and negative emotions in information seeking and sharing about the above topic? The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Findings - Of the emotional expressions, 42 percent were positive and 58 percent negative. The most frequent emotions were amusement, contempt, worry, irritation and pleasure. The frequencies of positive and emotional expressions varied in the context of 12 IPA categories. Positive emotions predominated when participants showed solidarity or agreed, while negative emotions were particularly prevalent when indicating antagonism. The repertoire of positive and negative emotions was broadest while providing opinions or sharing information with others. In contrast, emotions were expressed rarely in the context of information seeking. Research limitations/implications - The study is explorative in nature and the findings are based on the examination of an online discussion group focussed on the issues of consumer awareness. Originality/value - The study contributes to the study of affective factors in computer-mediated interaction by empirically specifying the repertoire of positive and negative emotions expressed in online discussion.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 1660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=1660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 1660, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1660)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study examines the ways in which informational support based on user-generated content is provided for the needs of leisure-related travel planning in an online discussion group and a Q&A site. Attention is paid to the grounds by which the participants bolster the informational support. The findings draw on the analysis of 200 threads of a Finnish online discussion group and a Yahoo! Answers Q&A (question and answer) forum. Three main types of informational support were identified: providing factual information, providing advice, and providing personal opinion. The grounds used in the answers varied across the types of informational support. While providing factual information, the most popular ground was description of the attributes of an entity. In the context of providing advice, reference to external sources of information was employed most frequently. Finally, although providing personal opinions, the participants most often bolstered their views by articulating positive or negative evaluations of an entity. Overall, regarding the grounds, there were more similarities than differences between the discussion group and the Q&A site.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 5283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=5283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 5283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5283)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose Drawing on the ideas of conversation analysis (CA), the purpose of this paper is to elaborate the picture of dialogical information seeking and sharing. To this end, information seeking and sharing are approached as interactive online talk occurring in an asynchronous discussion forum. Design/methodology/approach The conceptual framework is based on the elaboration of Schegloff's model for sequence organisation in spoken conversation. As a result, ten categories constitutive of asynchronous online talk were identified. It was further examined how online talk of this type is structured by expanded question - answers adjacency pairs and how such pairs are constitutive of dialogical information seeking and sharing. This question was explored by scrutinising 20 discussion threads downloaded from a do-it-yourself related online forum. Findings Four ideal typical patterns of asynchronous online talk were identified. Answering the question is a basic pattern of online talk, based on the provision of responses to an individual request. Specifying the answer, broadening the discussion topic and challenging the answer represent more sophisticated patterns incorporating post-expansions of diverse kind. Research limitations/implications As the study focusses on four patterns constitutive of online talk occurring in a particular domain, the findings cannot be generalised to depict the phenomena of dialogical information interaction as a whole. Further research is needed to scrutiny the particular features of asynchronous online talk in the context of dialogical information interaction. Originality/value The paper pioneers by examining the potential of CA in the micro-level study of dialogical information seeking and sharing structured by expanded adjacency pairs. The findings also identify the limitations of the conversation analytic methodology in the study of asynchronous online discourse.

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article elaborates the picture of information use from the perspective of interpreting informational cues about the attributes of entities. It is assumed that such activity draws on cognitive mechanisms that are employed as the constituents of diverse interpretation approaches to informational cues. The empirical data of the study were gathered by means of think aloud method from 16 prospective homebuyers in 2008. The participants interpreted informational cues available in announcements published in a printed housing listing issue and a Web-based information system serving the needs of prospective homebuyers. The data were examined by means of qualitative content analysis. By drawing on the findings of Zhang and her associates, the study revealed 7 cognitive mechanisms: identification of key attributes, specification, evaluation, comparison by similarity, comparison by differentiation, explanation, and conclusion. Three major approaches employed in the interpetation of informational cues were identified. The descriptive-evaluative approach draws on the identification and evaluation of individual attributes of an entity. The comparative approach is more sophisticated because it is based on the evaluation of the attributes by their perceived similarity or differentiation. Finally, the explanatory approach draws on the identification of attributes with causal potential.

0.0031002287 = product of:
  0.015501143 = sum of:
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 2401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=2401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2401)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.13-28

0.0027127003 = product of:
  0.013563501 = sum of:
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=3670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3670, 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=3670)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 3.1996 21:35:26

0.0023251716 = product of:
  0.011625858 = sum of:
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 564, 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=564)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17. 5.2009 18:35:29

0.0023251716 = product of:
  0.011625858 = sum of:
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 4253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=4253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4253, 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=4253)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18. 5.2018 13:29:10

0.0019202124 = product of:
  0.009601062 = sum of:
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3713, 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=3713)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22