-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.02
0.01569825 = product of:
0.039245624 = sum of:
0.02620616 = weight(_text_:den in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02620616 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10344325 = queryWeight, product of:
2.866198 = idf(docFreq=6840, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.25333852 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.866198 = idf(docFreq=6840, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.013039465 = product of:
0.039118394 = sum of:
0.039118394 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039118394 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12638368 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.0089796325 = product of:
0.022449082 = sum of:
0.012669483 = product of:
0.038008448 = sum of:
0.038008448 = weight(_text_:f in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038008448 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.009779599 = product of:
0.029338794 = sum of:
0.029338794 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029338794 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12638368 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Vis, F.: Commenting on YouTube videos : From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang (2012)
0.01
0.007512619 = product of:
0.018781547 = sum of:
0.010557904 = product of:
0.03167371 = sum of:
0.03167371 = weight(_text_:f in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03167371 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008223643 = product of:
0.024670927 = sum of:
0.024670927 = weight(_text_:29 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024670927 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12695599 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 63, 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=63)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.0065493234 = product of:
0.032746617 = sum of:
0.032746617 = product of:
0.049119923 = sum of:
0.024670927 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024670927 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12695599 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
0.024448996 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024448996 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12638368 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.0065493234 = product of:
0.032746617 = sum of:
0.032746617 = product of:
0.049119923 = sum of:
0.024670927 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024670927 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12695599 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.024448996 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024448996 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12638368 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Goriunova, O.; Vis, F.; Faulkner, S.; Burns, A.; Aulich, J.; Mas-Bleda, A.; Stuart, E.; D'Orazio, F.: Chatting through pictures : a classification of images tweeted in one week in the UK and USA (2016)
0.00
0.002986226 = product of:
0.01493113 = sum of:
0.01493113 = product of:
0.04479339 = sum of:
0.04479339 = weight(_text_:f in 3215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04479339 = score(doc=3215,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.31138954 = fieldWeight in 3215, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3215)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Thelwall, M.: Assessing web search engines : a webometric approach (2011)
0.00
0.0025338966 = product of:
0.012669483 = sum of:
0.012669483 = product of:
0.038008448 = sum of:
0.038008448 = weight(_text_:f in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038008448 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013)
0.00
0.0025338966 = product of:
0.012669483 = sum of:
0.012669483 = product of:
0.038008448 = sum of:
0.038008448 = weight(_text_:f in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038008448 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.00
0.0023050734 = product of:
0.011525366 = sum of:
0.011525366 = product of:
0.0345761 = sum of:
0.0345761 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0345761 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12638368 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:51
-
Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005)
0.00
0.0023026196 = product of:
0.011513098 = sum of:
0.011513098 = product of:
0.034539293 = sum of:
0.034539293 = weight(_text_:29 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034539293 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12695599 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 364, 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=364)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 3. 6.2007 16:37:29
-
Barjak, F.; Thelwall, M.: ¬A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams (2008)
0.00
0.002111581 = product of:
0.010557904 = sum of:
0.010557904 = product of:
0.03167371 = sum of:
0.03167371 = weight(_text_:f in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03167371 = score(doc=1383,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Thelwall, M.; Li, X.; Barjak, F.; Robinson, S.: Assessing the international web connectivity of research groups (2008)
0.00
0.002111581 = product of:
0.010557904 = sum of:
0.010557904 = product of:
0.03167371 = sum of:
0.03167371 = weight(_text_:f in 1401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03167371 = score(doc=1401,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 1401, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1401)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.00
0.002111581 = product of:
0.010557904 = sum of:
0.010557904 = product of:
0.03167371 = sum of:
0.03167371 = weight(_text_:f in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03167371 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: JASIST 69(2018) no.3, S.498-499 (Isidro F. Aguillo).
-
Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Search engine coverage bias : evidence and possible causes (2004)
0.00
0.0019736742 = product of:
0.00986837 = sum of:
0.00986837 = product of:
0.029605111 = sum of:
0.029605111 = weight(_text_:29 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029605111 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12695599 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2536, 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=2536)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 14. 8.2004 10:30:29
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? (2015)
0.00
0.0019736742 = product of:
0.00986837 = sum of:
0.00986837 = product of:
0.029605111 = sum of:
0.029605111 = weight(_text_:29 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029605111 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12695599 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1813, 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=1813)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 26. 4.2015 19:29:49
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016)
0.00
0.0019736742 = product of:
0.00986837 = sum of:
0.00986837 = product of:
0.029605111 = sum of:
0.029605111 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029605111 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12695599 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, 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=2495)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 27.12.2015 11:29:37
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.00
0.0019559197 = product of:
0.009779599 = sum of:
0.009779599 = product of:
0.029338794 = sum of:
0.029338794 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029338794 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12638368 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.00
0.0019559197 = product of:
0.009779599 = sum of:
0.009779599 = product of:
0.029338794 = sum of:
0.029338794 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029338794 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12638368 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
0.0019559197 = product of:
0.009779599 = sum of:
0.009779599 = product of:
0.029338794 = sum of:
0.029338794 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029338794 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12638368 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Barjak, F.; Li, X.; Thelwall, M.: Which factors explain the Web impact of scientists' personal homepages? (2007)
0.00
0.0016892646 = product of:
0.008446323 = sum of:
0.008446323 = product of:
0.025338966 = sum of:
0.025338966 = weight(_text_:f in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025338966 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14385001 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.036090754 = queryNorm
0.17614852 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
