Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.031997908 = product of:
  0.07999477 = sum of:
    0.068473496 = weight(_text_:context in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068473496 = score(doc=3460,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.38856095 = fieldWeight in 3460, 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=3460)
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, 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=3460)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study explores how and why people participate in collaborative knowledge-building practices in the context of Wikipedia. Based on a survey of 223 Wikipedians, this study examines the relationship between motivations, internal cognitive beliefs, social-relational factors, and knowledge-sharing intentions. Results from structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis reveal that attitudes, knowledge self-efficacy, and a basic norm of generalized reciprocity have significant and direct relationships with knowledge-sharing intentions. Altruism (an intrinsic motivator) is positively related to attitudes toward knowledge sharing, whereas reputation (an extrinsic motivator) is not a significant predictor of attitude. The study also reveals that a social-relational factor, namely, a sense of belonging, is related to knowledge-sharing intentions indirectly through different motivational and social factors such as altruism, subjective norms, knowledge self-efficacy, and generalized reciprocity. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

0.017940167 = product of:
  0.08970083 = sum of:
    0.08970083 = weight(_text_:index in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08970083 = score(doc=4941,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 4941, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4941)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) 2008, we apply mapping techniques previously developed for mapping journal structures in the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices. Citation relations among the 110,718 records were aggregated at the level of 1,157 journals specific to the A&HCI, and the journal structures are questioned on whether a cognitive structure can be reconstructed and visualized. Both cosine-normalization (bottom up) and factor analysis (top down) suggest a division into approximately 12 subsets. The relations among these subsets are explored using various visualization techniques. However, we were not able to retrieve this structure using the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, including the 25 categories that are specific to the A&HCI. We discuss options for validation such as against the categories of the Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the panel structure of the European Reference Index for the Humanities, and compare our results with the curriculum organization of the Humanities Section of the College of Letters and Sciences of the University of California at Los Angeles as an example of institutional organization.

Object

Arts and Humanities Citation Index

0.013977095 = product of:
  0.06988547 = sum of:
    0.06988547 = weight(_text_:context in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06988547 = score(doc=3437,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.39657336 = fieldWeight in 3437, 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=3437)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site's policy of assuring verifiability through citations. It does so by examining the references and citations of a subset of country histories. The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used. Many of these are from only a few US government Websites or news media and few are to academic journal material. Given these results, one response would be to declare Wikipedia unsuitable for serious reference work. But another option emerges when we jettison technological determinism and look at Wikipedia as a product of a wider social context. Key to this context is a world in which information is bottled up as commodities requiring payment for access. Equally important is the problematic assumption that texts are undifferentiated bearers of knowledge. Those involved in instructional programs can draw attention to the social nature of texts to counter these assumptions and by so doing create an awareness for a new generation of Wikipedians and Wikipedia users of the need to evaluate texts (and hence citations) in light of the social context of their production and use.

0.009258853 = product of:
  0.046294264 = sum of:
    0.046294264 = product of:
      0.06944139 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Proceedings of the 3rd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Knowledge Organization, May 28-29, 2015, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_5.

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bis heute findet sich der Name des französischen Gelehrten und Mathematikers Jean-Baptiste le Rond d'Alembert in vielen Geschichtsbüchern. Das hat vor allem einen Grund: Gemeinsam mit dem Philosophen Denis Diderot gab d'Alembert eines der wichtigsten Werke der Aufklärung heraus. Dessen etwas ausladender Titel lautet: »Enzyklopädie oder ein durchdachtes Wörterbuch der Wissenschaften, Künste und Handwerke«. Ziel der Herausgeber war es, »ein allgemeines Bild der Anstrengungen des menschlichen Geistes auf allen Gebieten und in allen Jahrhunderten zu entwerfen«. An der Abfassung der mehr als 70 000 Enzyklopädie-Artikel beteiligte sich fast die gesamte geistige Elite Frankreichs, darunter Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire und Montesquieu. Der erste Band erschien 1751 und enthielt ein viel beachtetes Vorwort von d'Alembert, der gelegentlich erklärte: Das Wissen der Menschheit stamme nicht von einem Monarchen oder aus Rom, sondern vom individuellen Sinn und Verstand. Erwartungsgemäß stand der französische König Ludwig XV. dem Werk ebenso ablehnend gegenüber wie Papst Clemens XIII., der die Enzyklopädie 1759 auf den Index der verbotenen Bücher setzen ließ. Doch alle Versuche, den Fortgang des Projekts zu verhindern, scheiterten. Zuletzt umfasste das aufklärerische Mammutwerk 35 Bände; den Schluss bildete 1780 ein zweibändiges Register.

0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=5471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5471)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases. Design/methodology/approach A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the "Cited Reference Search" in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category. Findings In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry. Originality/value The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3633, 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=3633)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2007) within its broader historical context of the production of encyclopedias in the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries. The paper contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to the Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1905, and to the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica published in 1972; then contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to Wikipedia and to other projects of online encyclopedias. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a personal reflective review of the sources in question. Findings - That Encyclopaedia Judaica in its latest edition does not adequately replace the original first edition in terms of depth of scholarly work. It is considered that the model offered by Wikipedia could work well for the Encyclopaedia Judaica, allowing it to retain the core of the expert knowledge, and at the same time channel the energy of volunteer editors which has made Wikipedia such a success. Practical implications - The paper is of interest to those with an interest in encyclopedia design or Jewish studies. Originality/value - This paper provides a unique reflection on the latest edition of the encyclopedia and considers future models for its publication based on traditional and non-traditional methods.

0.0073755085 = product of:
  0.018438771 = sum of:
    0.011649796 = weight(_text_:system in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011649796 = score(doc=2171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
    0.006788976 = product of:
      0.020366928 = sum of:
        0.020366928 = weight(_text_:22 in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020366928 = score(doc=2171,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Basisdemokratisches Wissen "Es gibt ein neues Verständnis von innerbetrieblichem Lernen", sagt Pawlowsky. "Durch Wikipedia wird es basisdemokratischer, jeder Beteiligte hat mit seiner Perspektive eine Stimme." Das sei auch nötig, denn nur so könne die zunehmende Komplexität der Wirklichkeit bewältigt werden. Wikipedia, so liest sich die Diktion der Preisinitiatoren, ist nicht nur demokratisch, sie dient auch der Effizienzsteigerung. Falsche Einträge in Wikipedia haben in der Vergangenheit dennoch für Aufsehen gesorgt. Vergangenes Jahr etwa offenbarte ein Autor der Berliner Zeitung, den Eintrag über die Friedrichshainer Karl-Marx-Allee zwei Jahre zuvor gefälscht zu haben, um Wikipedia zu testen. Zu DDR-Zeiten, hatte er dort geschrieben, sei die Straße "Stalins Badezimmer" genannt worden. Der Fantasiebegriff blieb nicht nur zwei Jahre in der Wikipedia, er wurde auch von anderen Medien übernommen. Einige Kritiker fühlten sich damals bestätigt: Der Wikipedia sei nicht zu trauen. "Wie jedes offene System kann auch Wikipedia missbraucht werden", sagt Pavel Richter. "Da sind wir als Community gefordert, dass so etwas entdeckt und rückgängig gemacht wird." Der Nutzer müsse sich darüber im Klaren sein, dass er sich nicht allein auf Wikipedia verlassen kann. "Man sollte nie nur einer Quelle vertrauen", sagt Richter. Karsten Weber sieht das ähnlich: "Es gibt in der Wikipedia eine ganze Menge Mist. Aber machen wir uns keine Illusionen. Das gilt auch für die Wissenschaft." Zudem hätten mehrere Studien herausgefunden, dass die Fehlerquote bei Wikipedia kaum höher sei als etwa beim Brockhaus.
Der neue Herausgeber des Brockhaus, ein Tochterverlag von Bertelsmann, hat unterdessen angekündigt, zum gedruckten Lexikon zurückzukehren. Etwa Anfang 2015 soll die 22. Auflage erscheinen. In Zeiten des virtuellen Informationsoverkills gebe es einen Bedarf an Orientierung, an Relevanzvorgaben, sagt Geschäftsführer Christoph Hünermann. Ausgerechnet Bertelsmann druckte 2008 ein knapp 1 000 Seiten langes Wikipedia-Lexikon mit den 50 000 meist gesuchten Begriffen. Eine Experten-Redaktion überprüfte die Einträge sicherheitshalber zuvor - soll allerdings kaum Fehler gefunden haben."

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.76 vom 29.3.2012, S.22-23

0.0065901205 = product of:
  0.032950602 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=369,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 369, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=369)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study analyzes the search behavior of Dutch-speaking nursing students with a nonnative knowledge of English who searched for information in MEDLINE/PubMed about a specific theme in nursing. We examine whether and to what extent their search efficiency is affected by their language skills. Our task-oriented approach focuses on three stages of the information retrieval process: need articulation, query formulation, and relevance judgment. The test participants completed a pretest questionnaire, which gave us information about their overall experience with the search system and their self-reported computer and language skills. The students were briefly introduced to the use of PubMed and MeSH (medical subject headings) before they conducted their keyword-driven subject search. We assessed the search results in terms of recall and precision, and also analyzed the search process. After the search task, a satisfaction survey and a language test were completed. We conclude that language skills have an impact on the search results. We hypothesize that language support might improve the efficiency of searches conducted by Dutch-speaking users of PubMed.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article explores the current perception of Wikipedia in academia, focusing on both the reasons for its unpopularity among some and the reasons for its growing acceptance among others. First, the reasons that Wikipedia is still struggling to gain acceptance among many academics and higher education professionals are identified. These include common misconceptions about Wikipedia, doubts about its quality, uneasiness with the challenge that it poses to the traditional peer-review system, and a lack of career-enhancing motivations related to using Wikipedia. Second, the benefits of teaching with Wikipedia for educators, students, and the wider society, as discussed in the current teaching literature, are explored. Finally, the article presents an argument for using Wikipedia in a variety of ways to help students develop critical and academic writing skills.

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 4670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=4670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4670, 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=4670)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.004650343 = product of:
  0.023251716 = sum of:
    0.023251716 = product of:
      0.069755144 = sum of:
        0.069755144 = weight(_text_:29 in 4030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069755144 = score(doc=4030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 4030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4030)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

12.11.2018 18:18:29

0.0027959512 = product of:
  0.013979756 = sum of:
    0.013979756 = weight(_text_:system in 4338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013979756 = score(doc=4338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.104393914 = fieldWeight in 4338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4338)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Dabei wirkt es oft so, als würde Wales am liebsten etwas anderes tun: Lernen. Immerzu. Immer mehr. Der Wissensdurst des 44-Jährigen ist grenzenlos. Schon als Kind las er begeistert in der Encyclopedia Britannica. Im Interview mit der Frankfurter Rundschau bezeichnete er sich mal selbst als "Wissensstreber". Er interessiert sich für Spieltheorie, Politik, Segeln, er lernt zusammen mit seiner Tochter Programmiersprachen - und die deutsche Sprache, weil sie die zweitwichtigste in der Wikipedia ist. In den frühen 90er Jahren war er Moderator eines Philosophieforums, in dem es um den Objektivismus der russisch-amerikanischen Philosophin Ayn Rand ging. Wales ist ein großer Anhänger von Rands Theorien und bezeichnet sich selbst als einen "Objektivisten durch und durch". Was das bedeutet? "Das richtige moralische Ziel im Leben ist die Suche nach dem persönlichen Glück ... Das einzige gesellschaftliche System, das zu dazu passt, ist eines von vollem Respekt für die Rechte des Individuums, eingebettet in Laissez-faire-Kapitalismus." Steht jedenfalls in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia."

0.0027127003 = product of:
  0.013563501 = sum of:
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 4722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=4722,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4722, 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=4722)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 8.2011 12:34:52

0.0027127003 = product of:
  0.013563501 = sum of:
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=577,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 577, 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=577)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 1.2013 18:29:35

0.0026882975 = product of:
  0.013441487 = sum of:
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1492, 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=1492)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.2014 18:56:46

0.0023251716 = product of:
  0.011625858 = sum of:
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=4266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4266, 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=4266)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 8.2011 12:34:52

0.0023042548 = product of:
  0.011521274 = sum of:
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 1821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=1821,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1821, 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=1821)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0023042548 = product of:
  0.011521274 = sum of:
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=5076,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16. 3.2019 17:29:12