Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025407877 = product of:
  0.050815754 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
    0.015888125 = product of:
      0.03177625 = sum of:
        0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03177625 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.024823686 = product of:
  0.049647372 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=937)
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 937, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this article, we elaborate on the meaning of quality in digital libraries (DLs) by proposing a model that is deeply grounded in a formal framework for digital libraries: 5S (Streams, Structures, Spaces, Scenarios, and Societies). For each major DL concept in the framework we formally define a number of dimensions of quality and propose a set of numerical indicators for those quality dimensions. In particular, we consider key concepts of a minimal DL: catalog, collection, digital object, metadata specification, repository, and services. Regarding quality dimensions, we consider: accessibility, accuracy, completeness, composability, conformance, consistency, effectiveness, efficiency, extensibility, pertinence, preservability, relevance, reliability, reusability, significance, similarity, and timeliness. Regarding measurement, we consider characteristics like: response time (with regard to efficiency), cost of migration (with respect to preservability), and number of service failures (to assess reliability). For some key DL concepts, the (quality dimension, numerical indicator) pairs are illustrated through their application to a number of "real-world" digital libraries. We also discuss connections between the proposed dimensions of DL quality and an expanded version of a workshop's consensus view of the life cycle of information in digital libraries. Such connections can be used to determine when and where quality issues can be measured, assessed, and improved - as well as how possible quality problems can be prevented, detected, and eliminated.

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.5, S.1416-1437

0.003972031 = product of:
  0.015888125 = sum of:
    0.015888125 = product of:
      0.03177625 = sum of:
        0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03177625 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3343, 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=3343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

0.0036799356 = product of:
  0.014719742 = sum of:
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 4219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=4219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 45(2009) no.3, S.380-391