Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

0.18520841 = product of:
  0.74083364 = sum of:
    0.74083364 = weight(_text_:judges in 4275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.74083364 = score(doc=4275,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.5312371 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        1.3945441 = fieldWeight in 4275, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4275)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines judgements of relevance of document representations to query statements made by people other than the the originators of the queries. A small group of graduate students in the School of Information and Library Studies and undergraduates of Michigan Univ. judges sets of documents that had been retrieved for and judged by real users for a previous study. The assessment of relevance, by the secondary judges, were analysed by themselves and in comparison with the users' assessments. The judges performed reasonably well but some important differences were identified. Secondary judges use the various fields of document records in different ways than users and have a higher threshold of relevance

0.1183253 = product of:
  0.4733012 = sum of:
    0.4733012 = weight(_text_:judges in 99) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4733012 = score(doc=99,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.5312371 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.8909415 = fieldWeight in 99, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=99)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article extends relevance theory (RT) from linguistic pragmatics into information retrieval. Using more than 50 retrieval experiments from the literature as examples, it applies RT to explain the frequency distributions of documents on relevance scales with three or more points. The scale points, which judges in experiments must consider in addition to queries and documents, are communications from researchers. In RT, the relevance of a communication varies directly with its cognitive effects and inversely with the effort of processing it. Researchers define and/or label the scale points to measure the cognitive effects of documents on judges. However, they apparently assume that all scale points as presented are equally easy for judges to process. Yet the notion that points cost variable effort explains fairly well the frequency distributions of judgments across them. By hypothesis, points that cost more effort are chosen by judges less frequently. Effort varies with the vagueness or strictness of scale-point labels and definitions. It is shown that vague scales tend to produce U- or V-shaped distributions, while strict scales tend to produce right-skewed distributions. These results reinforce the paper's more general argument that RT clarifies the concept of relevance in the dialogues of retrieval evaluation.

0.08366862 = product of:
  0.33467448 = sum of:
    0.33467448 = weight(_text_:judges in 48) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.33467448 = score(doc=48,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.5312371 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.62999076 = fieldWeight in 48, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=48)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we introduce a new information system evaluation method and report on its application to a collaborative information seeking system, AntWorld. The key innovation of the new method is to use precisely the same group of users who work with the system as judges, a system we call Cross-Evaluation. In the new method, we also propose to assess the system at the level of task completion. The obvious potential limitation of this method is that individuals may be inclined to think more highly of the materials that they themselves have found and are almost certain to think more highly of their own work product than they do of the products built by others. The keys to neutralizing this problem are careful design and a corresponding analytical model based on analysis of variance. We model the several measures of task completion with a linear model of five effects, describing the users who interact with the system, the system used to finish the task, the task itself, the behavior of individuals as judges, and the selfjudgment bias. Our analytical method successfully isolates the effect of each variable. This approach provides a successful model to make concrete the "threerealities" paradigm, which calls for "real tasks," "real users," and "real systems."

0.0828277 = product of:
  0.3313108 = sum of:
    0.3313108 = weight(_text_:judges in 2258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3313108 = score(doc=2258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5312371 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.623659 = fieldWeight in 2258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2258)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

51 subject searches were performed in an online catalog containing about 4,5 million records. Their success was judges in terms of lists of items, known to be relevant to the various topics, compiled by subject specialists (faculty members or authors of articles in specialized encyclopedias). Many of the items known to be relevant were not retrieved, even in very broad searches that sometimes retrieved several hundred records, and very little could be done to make them retrievable within the constraints of present cataloging practice. Librarians should recognize that library catalogs, as now implemented, offer only the most primitive of subject access and should seek to develop different types of subject access tools. - Vgl auch Letter (B.H. Weinberg) in: LTRS 36(1992) S.123-124.

0.073464304 = product of:
  0.29385722 = sum of:
    0.29385722 = weight(_text_:headings in 2446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29385722 = score(doc=2446,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.91925365 = fieldWeight in 2446, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2446)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A recent survey at the Royal Library in the Netherlands showed that subject headings are more efficient than title keywords for retrieval purposes. 475 Dutch publications were selected at random and assigned subject headings. The study showed that subject headings provided additional useful information in 56% of titles. Subsequent searching of the library's online catalogue showed that 88% of titles were retrieved via subject headings against 57% through title keywords. Further precision may be achieved with the help of indexing staff, but at considerable cost

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: A good title has no need of subject headings, or does it?: a comparative study of title keywords against subject headings

0.059983354 = product of:
  0.23993342 = sum of:
    0.23993342 = weight(_text_:headings in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23993342 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.7505675 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Title words - subject headings: a comparative research

0.05916265 = product of:
  0.2366506 = sum of:
    0.2366506 = weight(_text_:judges in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2366506 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5312371 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.44547075 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Kekalainen and Jarvelin use what they term generalized, nonbinary recall and precision measures where recall is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the sum of relevance scores of all documents in the data base, and precision is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the number of documents where the relevance scores are real numbers between zero and one. Using the In-Query system and a text data base of 53,893 newspaper articles with 30 queries selected from those for which four relevance categories to provide recall measures were available, search results were evaluated by four judges. Searches were done by average key term weight, Boolean expression, and by average term weight where the terms are grouped by a synonym operator, and for each case with and without expansion of the original terms. Use of higher standards of relevance appears to increase the superiority of the best method. Some methods do a better job of getting the highly relevant documents but do not increase retrieval of marginal ones. There is evidence that generalized precision provides more equitable results, while binary precision provides undeserved merit to some methods. Generally graded relevance measures seem to provide additional insight into IR evaluation.

0.05916265 = product of:
  0.2366506 = sum of:
    0.2366506 = weight(_text_:judges in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2366506 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5312371 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.44547075 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.063882 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The effort in addition to relevance is a major factor for satisfaction and utility of the document to the actual user. The purpose of this paper is to propose a method in generating relevance judgments that incorporate effort without human judges' involvement. Then the study determines the variation in system rankings due to low effort relevance judgment in evaluating retrieval systems at different depth of evaluation. Design/methodology/approach Effort-based relevance judgments are generated using a proposed boxplot approach for simple document features, HTML features and readability features. The boxplot approach is a simple yet repeatable approach in classifying documents' effort while ensuring outlier scores do not skew the grading of the entire set of documents. Findings The retrieval systems evaluation using low effort relevance judgments has a stronger influence on shallow depth of evaluation compared to deeper depth. It is proved that difference in the system rankings is due to low effort documents and not the number of relevant documents. Originality/value Hence, it is crucial to evaluate retrieval systems at shallow depth using low effort relevance judgments.

0.051414303 = product of:
  0.20565721 = sum of:
    0.20565721 = weight(_text_:headings in 5276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20565721 = score(doc=5276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.64334357 = fieldWeight in 5276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5276)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.044526096 = product of:
  0.17810439 = sum of:
    0.17810439 = weight(_text_:headings in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17810439 = score(doc=386,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.5571519 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using subject headings for Online Retrieval is an indispensable tool for online system desingners who are developing new systems or refining exicting ones. The book describes subject analysis and subject searching in online catalogs, including the limitations of retrieval, and demonstrates how such limitations can be overcome through system design and programming. The book describes the Library of Congress Subject headings system and system characteristics, shows how information is stored in machine readable files, and offers examples of and recommendations for successful methods. Tables are included to support these recommendations, and diagrams, graphs, and bar charts are used to provide results of data analyses.

0.042414635 = product of:
  0.16965854 = sum of:
    0.16965854 = weight(_text_:headings in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16965854 = score(doc=1603,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.5307314 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We have investigated the relative merits of searching on titles, subject headings, abstracts, free-language terms, and combinations of these elements. The COMPENDEX data base was used for this study since it combined all of these data elements of interest. In general, the results obtained from the experiments indicate that, as expected, titles alone are not satisfactory for efficient retrieval. The combination of titles and abstracts came the closest to 100% retrieval, with searching of abstracts alone doing almost as well. Indexer input, although necessary for 100% retrieval in almost all cases, was found to be relatively unimportant

0.029991677 = product of:
  0.11996671 = sum of:
    0.11996671 = weight(_text_:headings in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11996671 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research shows that 65-80% of subject search terms fail to match the appropriate subject heading and one third to one half of subject searches result in no references being retrieved. Examines the subject search terms geberated by 82 school and college students in Princeton, NJ, evaluated the match between the named terms and the expected subject headings, proposes an explanation for match failures in relation to 3 invariant properties common to all search terms: concreteness, complexity, and syndeticity. Suggests that match failure is a consequence of developmental naming patterns and that these patterns can be overcome through the use of metacognitive naming skills

0.029991677 = product of:
  0.11996671 = sum of:
    0.11996671 = weight(_text_:headings in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11996671 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.

0.025707152 = product of:
  0.10282861 = sum of:
    0.10282861 = weight(_text_:headings in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10282861 = score(doc=2247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses a retrieval study that focused on collection level archival records in the OCLC OLUC, made accessible through the EPIC online search system. Data were also collected from the local OPAC at North Carolina University at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in which UNC-CH produced OCLC records are loaded. The chief objective was to explore the retrieval environments in which a random sample of USMARC AMC records produced at UNC-CH were found: specifically to obtain a picture of the density of these databases in regard to each subject heading applied and, more generally, for each records. Key questions were: how many records would be retrieved for each subject heading attached to each of the records; and what was the nature of these subject headings vis a vis the numer of hits associated with them. Results show that large retrieval sets are a potential problem with national bibliographic utilities and that the local and national retrieval environments can vary greatly. The need for specifity in indexing is emphasized

0.025707152 = product of:
  0.10282861 = sum of:
    0.10282861 = weight(_text_:headings in 3419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10282861 = score(doc=3419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3419)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Investigates the extent to which title keywords convey subject content and compares the relative effectiveness of searching title keywords using 2 search strategies to examine whether adjacency operators in title keyword searches are effective in improving recall and precision of online searching. Title keywords from a random sample of titles in the field of economics were searched on FirstSearch, using the WorldCat database, which is equivalent in coverage to the OCLC OLUC, with and without adjacency of the keywords specified. The LCSH of the items retrieved were compared with the sample title subject headings to determine the degree of match or relevance and the values for precision and recall were calculated. Results indicated that, when keywords were discipline specific, adjacency operators improved precision with little degradation of recall. Systems that allow positional operators or rank output by proximity of terms may increase search success

0.025707152 = product of:
  0.10282861 = sum of:
    0.10282861 = weight(_text_:headings in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10282861 = score(doc=3062,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Based on a relatively large subset representing one third of the Medline collection, this paper evaluates ten different IR models, including recent developments in both probabilistic and language models. We show that the best performing IR models is a probabilistic model developed within the Divergence from Randomness framework [Amati, G., & van Rijsbergen, C.J. (2002) Probabilistic models of information retrieval based on measuring the divergence from randomness. ACM-Transactions on Information Systems 20(4), 357-389], which result in 170% enhancements in mean average precision when compared to the classical tf idf vector-space model. This paper also reports on our impact evaluations on the retrieval effectiveness of manually assigned descriptors (MeSH or Medical Subject Headings), showing that by including these terms retrieval performance can improve from 2.4% to 13.5%, depending on the underling IR model. Finally, we design a new general blind-query expansion approach showing improved retrieval performances compared to those obtained using the Rocchio approach.

0.021422626 = product of:
  0.085690506 = sum of:
    0.085690506 = weight(_text_:headings in 4868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085690506 = score(doc=4868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 4868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4868)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This paper reports on an analysis of the loss levels that would result if a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI), were missing the subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by its professional indexers, employing the methodology developed by Gross and Taylor (2005), and later by Gross et al. (2015). The results indicate that AEI users would lose a similar proportion of hits per query to that experienced by library catalog users: on average, 27% of the resources found by a sample of keyword queries on the AEI database would not have been found without the subject indexing, based on the Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors (ATED). The paper also discusses the methodological limitations of these studies, pointing out that real-life users might still find some of the resources missed by a particular query through follow-up searches, while additional resources might also be found through iterative searching on the subject vocabulary. The paper goes on to describe a new research design, based on a before - and - after experiment, which addresses some of these limitations. It is argued that this alternative design will provide a more realistic picture of the value that professionally assigned subject indexing and controlled subject vocabularies can add to literature searching of a more scholarly and thorough kind.

0.021422626 = product of:
  0.085690506 = sum of:
    0.085690506 = weight(_text_:headings in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085690506 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31966934 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This article reports on an investigation of the search value that subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by professional indexers add to a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI). First, a similar methodology to that developed by Gross et al. (2015) was applied, with keyword searches representing a range of educational topics run on the AEI database with and without its subject indexing. The results indicated that AEI users would also lose, on average, about a quarter of hits per query. Second, an alternative research design was applied in which an experienced literature searcher was asked to find resources on a set of educational topics on an AEI database stripped of its subject indexing and then asked to search for additional resources on the same topics after the subject indexing had been reinserted. In this study, the proportion of additional resources that would have been lost had it not been for the subject indexing was again found to be about a quarter of the total resources found for each topic, on average.

0.018945754 = product of:
  0.075783014 = sum of:
    0.075783014 = weight(_text_:und in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075783014 = score(doc=975,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14611205 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.51866364 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Im Information Retrieval tragen Evaluierungsinitiativen erheblich zur empirisch fundierten Forschung bei. Mit umfangreichen Kollektionen und Aufgaben unterstützen sie die Standardisierung und damit die Systementwicklung. Die wachsenden Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Korpora und Anwendungsszenarien führten zu einer starken Diversifizierung innerhalb der Evaluierungsinitiativen. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über den aktuellen Stand der wichtigsten Evaluierungsinitiativen und neuen Trends.

Source

Effektive Information Retrieval Verfahren in Theorie und Praxis: ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge des Vierten Hildesheimer Evaluierungs- und Retrievalworkshop (HIER 2005), Hildesheim, 20.7.2005. Hrsg.: T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker

0.018604362 = product of:
  0.07441745 = sum of:
    0.07441745 = weight(_text_:und in 2221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07441745 = score(doc=2221,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14611205 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065878585 = queryNorm
        0.50931764 = fieldWeight in 2221, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2221)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Köln : Fachhochschule, Fachbereich Bibliotheks- und Informationswesen