Search (13192 results, page 4 of 660)

0.04911339 = product of:
  0.19645356 = sum of:
    0.19645356 = weight(_text_:judge in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19645356 = score(doc=1460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 1460, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1460)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information quality (IQ) is key to users' satisfaction with information systems. Understanding what IQ means to users can effectively inform system improvement. Existing inquiries into self-tracking data quality primarily focus on accuracy. Interviewing 20 consumers who had self-tracked health indicators for at least 6 months, we identified eight dimensions that consumers apply to evaluate self-tracking data quality: value-added, accuracy, completeness, accessibility, ease of understanding, trustworthiness, aesthetics, and invasiveness. These dimensions fell into four categories-intrinsic, contextual, representational, and accessibility-suggesting that consumers judge self-tracking data quality not only based on the data's inherent quality but also considering tasks at hand, the clarity of data representation, and data accessibility. We also found that consumers' self-tracking data quality judgments are shaped primarily by their goals or motivations, subjective experience with tracked activities, mental models of how systems work, self-tracking tools' reputation, cost, and design, and domain knowledge and intuition, but less by more objective criteria such as scientific research results, validated devices, or consultation with experts. Future studies should develop and validate a scale for measuring consumers' perceptions of self-tracking data quality and commit efforts to develop technologies and training materials to enhance consumers' ability to evaluate data quality.

0.04911339 = product of:
  0.19645356 = sum of:
    0.19645356 = weight(_text_:judge in 1649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19645356 = score(doc=1649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 1649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1649)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In response to calls for recommender systems to balance accuracy and alternative measures such as diversity and novelty, we propose that recommendation strategies should be applied adaptively according to users' preference traits. Psychological scales for "preference diversity" and "openness to novelty" were developed to measure users' willingness to accept diverse and novel recommendations, respectively. To validate the scales empirically, a user study was conducted in which 293 regular moviegoers were asked to judge a set of 220 movies representing both mainstream and "long-tail" appeals. The judgment task involved indicating and rating movies they had seen, heard of but not seen, and not known previously. Correlatoin analyses were then conducted between the participants' preference diversity and openness to novelty scores with the diversity and novelty of their past movie viewing profile and movies they had not seen before but shown interest in. Preference diversity scores were shown to be significantly related to the diversity of the movies they had seen. Higher preference diversity scores were also associated with greater diversity in favored unknown movies. Similarly, participants who scored high on the openness to novelty scale had viewed more little-known movies and were generally interested in less popular movies as well as movies that differed from those they had seen before. Implications of these psychological traits for recommendation strategies are also discussed.

0.041674092 = product of:
  0.16669637 = sum of:
    0.16669637 = weight(_text_:judge in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16669637 = score(doc=3417,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.36239886 = fieldWeight in 3417, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3417)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.

0.03929071 = product of:
  0.15716285 = sum of:
    0.15716285 = weight(_text_:judge in 188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15716285 = score(doc=188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.34167293 = fieldWeight in 188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Kim and Wilber present three techniques for the algorithmic identification in text of content bearing terms and phrases intended for human use as entry points or hyperlinks. Using a set of 1,075 terms from MEDLINE evaluated on a zero to four, stop word to definite content word scale, they evaluate the ranked lists of their three methods based on their placement of content words in the top ranks. Data consist of the natural language elements of 304,057 MEDLINE records from 1996, and 173,252 Wall Street Journal records from the TIPSTER collection. Phrases are extracted by breaking at punctuation marks and stop words, normalized by lower casing, replacement of nonalphanumerics with spaces, and the reduction of multiple spaces. In the ``strength of context'' approach each document is a vector of binary values for each word or word pair. The words or word pairs are removed from all documents, and the Robertson, Spark Jones relevance weight for each term computed, negative weights replaced with zero, those below a randomness threshold ignored, and the remainder summed for each document, to yield a score for the document and finally to assign to the term the average document score for documents in which it occurred. The average of these word scores is assigned to the original phrase. The ``frequency clumping'' approach defines a random phrase as one whose distribution among documents is Poisson in character. A pvalue, the probability that a phrase frequency of occurrence would be equal to, or less than, Poisson expectations is computed, and a score assigned which is the negative log of that value. In the ``database comparison'' approach if a phrase occurring in a document allows prediction that the document is in MEDLINE rather that in the Wall Street Journal, it is considered to be content bearing for MEDLINE. The score is computed by dividing the number of occurrences of the term in MEDLINE by occurrences in the Journal, and taking the product of all these values. The one hundred top and bottom ranked phrases that occurred in at least 500 documents were collected for each method. The union set had 476 phrases. A second selection was made of two word phrases occurring each in only three documents with a union of 599 phrases. A judge then ranked the two sets of terms as to subject specificity on a 0 to 4 scale. Precision was the average subject specificity of the first r ranks and recall the fraction of the subject specific phrases in the first r ranks and eleven point average precision was used as a summary measure. The three methods all move content bearing terms forward in the lists as does the use of the sum of the logs of the three methods.

0.03929071 = product of:
  0.15716285 = sum of:
    0.15716285 = weight(_text_:judge in 3659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15716285 = score(doc=3659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.34167293 = fieldWeight in 3659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3659)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) has been developed over the course of more than a century, predating the semantic web by some time. Until the 1986, the only concept-toconcept relationship available was an undifferentiated "See Also" reference, which was used for both associative (RT) and hierarchical (BT/NT) connections. In that year, in preparation for the first release of the headings in machine readable MARC Authorities form, an attempt was made to automatically convert these "See Also" links into the standardized thesaural relations. Unfortunately, the rule used to determine the type of reference to generate relied on the presence of symmetric links to detect associatively related terms; "See Also" references that were only present in one of the related terms were assumed to be hierarchical. This left the process vulnerable to inconsistent use of references in the pre-conversion data, with a marked bias towards promoting relationships to hierarchical status. The Library of Congress was aware that the results of the conversion contained many inconsistencies, and intended to validate and correct the results over the course of time. Unfortunately, twenty years later, less than 40% of the converted records have been evaluated. The converted records, being the earliest encountered during the Library's cataloging activities, represent the most basic concepts within LCSH; errors in the syndetic structure for these records affect far more subordinate concepts than those nearer the periphery. Worse, a policy of patterning new headings after pre-existing ones leads to structural errors arising from the conversion process being replicated in these newer headings, perpetuating and exacerbating the errors. As the LCSH prepares for its second great conversion, from MARC to SKOS, it is critical to address these structural problems. As part of the work on converting the headings into SKOS, I have experimented with different visualizations of the tangled web of broader terms embedded in LCSH. This poster illustrates several of these renderings, shows how they can help users to judge which relationships might not be correct, and shows just exactly how Doorbells and Mammals are related.

0.03929071 = product of:
  0.15716285 = sum of:
    0.15716285 = weight(_text_:judge in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15716285 = score(doc=859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.34167293 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Relevance is the central concept in information science because of its salience in designing and evaluating literature-based answering systems. It is salient when users seek information through human intermediaries, such as reference librarians, but becomes even more so when systems are automated and users must navigate them on their own. Designers of classic precomputer systems of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries appear to have been no less concerned with relevance than the information scientists of today. The concept has, however, proved difficult to define and operationalize. A common belief is that it is a relation between a user's request for information and the documents the system retrieves in response. Documents might be considered retrieval-worthy because they: 1) constitute evidence for or against a claim; 2) answer a question; or 3) simply match the request in topic. In practice, literature-based answering makes use of term-matching technology, and most evaluation of relevance has involved topical match as the primary criterion for acceptability. The standard table for evaluating the relation of retrieved documents to a request has only the values "relevant" and "not relevant," yet many analysts hold that relevance admits of degrees. Moreover, many analysts hold that users decide relevance on more dimensions than topical match. Who then can validly judge relevance? Is it only the person who put the request and who can evaluate a document on multiple dimensions? Or can surrogate judges perform this function on the basis of topicality? Such questions arise in a longstanding debate on whether relevance is objective or subjective. One proposal has been to reframe the debate in terms of relevance theory (imported from linguistic pragmatics), which makes relevance increase with a document's valuable cognitive effects and decrease with the effort needed to process it. This notion allows degree of topical match to contribute to relevance but allows other considerations to contribute as well. Since both cognitive effects and processing effort will differ across users, they can be taken as subjective, but users' decisions can also be objectively evaluated if the logic behind them is made explicit. Relevance seems problematical because the considerations that lead people to accept documents in literature searches, or to use them later in contexts such as citation, are seldom fully revealed. Once they are revealed, relevance may be seen as not only multidimensional and dynamic, but also understandable.

0.028003544 = product of:
  0.112014174 = sum of:
    0.112014174 = weight(_text_:und in 2722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.112014174 = score(doc=2722,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.84886265 = fieldWeight in 2722, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2722)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 52(2001) und früher => nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis,

0.025868565 = product of:
  0.10347426 = sum of:
    0.10347426 = weight(_text_:und in 483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10347426 = score(doc=483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.7841457 = fieldWeight in 483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.25 = fieldNorm(doc=483)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

Thesaurus Technik und Management ==> TEMA-Thesaurus

0.025868565 = product of:
  0.10347426 = sum of:
    0.10347426 = weight(_text_:und in 6199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10347426 = score(doc=6199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.7841457 = fieldWeight in 6199, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.25 = fieldNorm(doc=6199)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

Gesamtthesaurus Thesaurus Technik und Management ==> TEMA-Thesaurus

0.025306694 = product of:
  0.10122678 = sum of:
    0.10122678 = weight(_text_:und in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10122678 = score(doc=615,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.7671139 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Philosophie und Geschichte der Wissenschaften; Bd.18

Source

Wirklichkeit und Wissen: Realismus, Antirealismus und Wirklichkeits-Konzeptionen in Philosophie und Wissenschaften. Hrsg.: H.J. Sandkühler

0.024916338 = product of:
  0.09966535 = sum of:
    0.09966535 = weight(_text_:und in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09966535 = score(doc=1190,freq=76.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.75528115 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
          8.717798 = tf(freq=76.0), with freq of:
            76.0 = termFreq=76.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

BK

18.00 Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein

Classification

ES 940 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Spezialbereiche der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft / Datenverarbeitung und Sprachwissenschaft. Computerlinguistik / Maschinelle Sprachanalyse
ET 400 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Einzelgebiete der Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachbeschreibung / Semantik und Lexikologie / Allgemeines
ES 945 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Spezialbereiche der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft / Datenverarbeitung und Sprachwissenschaft. Computerlinguistik / Spracherkennung
ET 580 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Einzelgebiete der Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachbeschreibung / Semantik und Lexikologie / Lexikologie (diachrone und synchrone) / Lexikographie
18.00 Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein

RVK

ES 940 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Spezialbereiche der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft / Datenverarbeitung und Sprachwissenschaft. Computerlinguistik / Maschinelle Sprachanalyse
ET 400 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Einzelgebiete der Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachbeschreibung / Semantik und Lexikologie / Allgemeines
ES 945 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Spezialbereiche der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft / Datenverarbeitung und Sprachwissenschaft. Computerlinguistik / Spracherkennung
ET 580 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Einzelgebiete der Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachbeschreibung / Semantik und Lexikologie / Lexikologie (diachrone und synchrone) / Lexikographie

Series

Sprache und Information ; 33

0.02331761 = product of:
  0.09327044 = sum of:
    0.09327044 = weight(_text_:und in 2578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09327044 = score(doc=2578,freq=104.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.7068194 = fieldWeight in 2578, product of:
          10.198039 = tf(freq=104.0), with freq of:
            104.0 = termFreq=104.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2578)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

BK

17.03 / Theorie und Methoden der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft
18.00 / Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein

Classification

ER 720 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachtheorie. Theorien und Methoden der Sprachwissenschaft / Einzelne Richtungen der Sprachtheorie
ER 610 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachphilosophie (Primärliteratur der Sprachphilosophie; Sekundärliteratur s.o. bei Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft) / Wesen und Bedeutung der Sprache
ES 160 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Spezialbereiche der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachphänomenologie / Allgemeines
ER 710 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachtheorie. Theorien und Methoden der Sprachwissenschaft / Funktion der Sprache
ER 765 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachtheorie. Theorien und Methoden der Sprachwissenschaft / Methodologie der Spachwissenschaft / Einzelmethoden, z.B. Informationsbefragung, Feldarbeit
ER 900 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachpsychologie. Psycholinguistik / Allgemeines
17.03 / Theorie und Methoden der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft
18.00 / Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein

RVK

ER 720 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachtheorie. Theorien und Methoden der Sprachwissenschaft / Einzelne Richtungen der Sprachtheorie
ER 610 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachphilosophie (Primärliteratur der Sprachphilosophie; Sekundärliteratur s.o. bei Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft) / Wesen und Bedeutung der Sprache
ES 160 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Spezialbereiche der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachphänomenologie / Allgemeines
ER 710 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachtheorie. Theorien und Methoden der Sprachwissenschaft / Funktion der Sprache
ER 765 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachtheorie. Theorien und Methoden der Sprachwissenschaft / Methodologie der Spachwissenschaft / Einzelmethoden, z.B. Informationsbefragung, Feldarbeit
ER 900 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachpsychologie. Psycholinguistik / Allgemeines

Series

Grundlagen der Kommunikation und Kognition

0.022864798 = product of:
  0.09145919 = sum of:
    0.09145919 = weight(_text_:und in 1374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09145919 = score(doc=1374,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.6930935 = fieldWeight in 1374, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1374)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.022864798 = product of:
  0.09145919 = sum of:
    0.09145919 = weight(_text_:und in 1932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09145919 = score(doc=1932,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.6930935 = fieldWeight in 1932, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1932)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.022864798 = product of:
  0.09145919 = sum of:
    0.09145919 = weight(_text_:und in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09145919 = score(doc=2195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.6930935 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 53(2002) ff. => Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis,

0.022864798 = product of:
  0.09145919 = sum of:
    0.09145919 = weight(_text_:und in 3720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09145919 = score(doc=3720,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.6930935 = fieldWeight in 3720, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3720)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.022864798 = product of:
  0.09145919 = sum of:
    0.09145919 = weight(_text_:und in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09145919 = score(doc=4652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.6930935 = fieldWeight in 4652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=4652)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.022864798 = product of:
  0.09145919 = sum of:
    0.09145919 = weight(_text_:und in 6623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09145919 = score(doc=6623,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.6930935 = fieldWeight in 6623, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6623)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.022864798 = product of:
  0.09145919 = sum of:
    0.09145919 = weight(_text_:und in 6873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09145919 = score(doc=6873,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.6930935 = fieldWeight in 6873, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6873)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.022864798 = product of:
  0.09145919 = sum of:
    0.09145919 = weight(_text_:und in 867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09145919 = score(doc=867,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.6930935 = fieldWeight in 867, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=867)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)