Search (92 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006) 0.06 
    0.055586442 = product of:
  0.09727627 = sum of:
    0.018519659 = product of:
      0.037039317 = sum of:
        0.037039317 = weight(_text_:p in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037039317 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.040418513 = weight(_text_:g in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040418513 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
    0.030719671 = weight(_text_:u in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030719671 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
    0.0076184273 = weight(_text_:a in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076184273 = score(doc=119,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.5714286 = coord(4/7)
    Abstract
    In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of 'representative authority'.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  2. Simon, J.: Interdisciplinary knowledge creation : using wikis in science (2006) 0.02 
    0.024109166 = product of:
  0.056254722 = sum of:
    0.028870367 = weight(_text_:g in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028870367 = score(doc=2516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
    0.021942623 = weight(_text_:u in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021942623 = score(doc=2516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
    0.0054417336 = weight(_text_:a in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054417336 = score(doc=2516,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    This article focuses on two aspects of knowledge generation. First, I want to explore how new knowledge is created in interdisciplinary discourses and, second, how this process might be mediated and promoted by the use of wikis. I suggest that it is the noise coming to life in (ex)changes of perspectives that enables the creation of new knowledge. In section 1-4, I am going to examine how the concepts of noise from the mathematical theory of communication (Shannon 1948) on the one hand and theories of organizational knowledge creation (cf. Nonaka 1994) on the other might help to understand the process of interdisciplinary knowledge creation. In section 5 I am going to explore the role wiki technologies can play in supporting interdisciplinary collaborations. This section is influenced by own experiences in a wiki-based interdisciplinary collaboration. It seems that even though certain features of wiki technology make it an excellent tool to externalize and combine individual knowledge leaving room for noise and at the same time documenting this process, the full benefit of wikis can only be obtained if they are embedded into a broader communication context.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  3. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.01 
    0.0114429435 = product of:
  0.0400503 = sum of:
    0.030719671 = weight(_text_:u in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030719671 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
    0.009330629 = weight(_text_:a in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009330629 = score(doc=828,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    There are close to a billion websites on the Internet with approximately 400 million users worldwide [www.internetworldstats.com]. People go to websites for a wide variety of different information tasks, from finding a restaurant to serious research. Many of the difficulties with searching the Web, as it is structured currently, can be attributed to increases to scale. The content of the Web is now so large that we only have a rough estimate of the number of sites and the range of information is extremely diverse, from blogs and photos to research articles and news videos.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  4. Spiteri, L.F.: Extending the scope of library discovery systems via hashtags (2018) 0.01 
    0.011274738 = product of:
  0.039461583 = sum of:
    0.035108197 = weight(_text_:u in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035108197 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
    0.004353387 = weight(_text_:a in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004353387 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
    Type
    a
  5. Sun, A.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Nguyen, K.T.N.; Bai, G.: Tag-based social image retrieval : an empirical evaluation (2011) 0.01 
    0.010941637 = product of:
  0.038295727 = sum of:
    0.028870367 = weight(_text_:g in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028870367 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
    0.00942536 = weight(_text_:a in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00942536 = score(doc=4938,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Tags associated with social images are valuable information source for superior image search and retrieval experiences. Although various heuristics are valuable to boost tag-based search for images, there is a lack of general framework to study the impact of these heuristics. Specifically, the task of ranking images matching a given tag query based on their associated tags in descending order of relevance has not been well studied. In this article, we take the first step to propose a generic, flexible, and extensible framework for this task and exploit it for a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of various methods for ranking images. To this end, we identified five orthogonal dimensions to quantify the matching score between a tagged image and a tag query. These five dimensions are: (i) tag relatedness to measure the degree of effectiveness of a tag describing the tagged image; (ii) tag discrimination to quantify the degree of discrimination of a tag with respect to the entire tagged image collection; (iii) tag length normalization analogous to document length normalization in web search; (iv) tag-query matching model for the matching score computation between an image tag and a query tag; and (v) query model for tag query rewriting. For each dimension, we identify a few implementations and evaluate their impact on NUS-WIDE dataset, the largest human-annotated dataset consisting of more than 269K tagged images from Flickr. We evaluated 81 single-tag queries and 443 multi-tag queries over 288 search methods and systematically compare their performances using standard metrics including Precision at top-K, Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG).
    Type
    a
  6. Chae, G.; Park, J.; Park, J.; Yeo, W.S.; Shi, C.: Linking and clustering artworks using social tags : revitalizing crowd-sourced information on cultural collections (2016) 0.01 
    0.010152887 = product of:
  0.0355351 = sum of:
    0.028870367 = weight(_text_:g in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028870367 = score(doc=2852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
    0.0066647357 = weight(_text_:a in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066647357 = score(doc=2852,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the most popular methods for collecting crowd-sourced information in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs). However, when the number of social tags grows rapidly, using them becomes problematic and, as a result, they are often left as simply big data that cannot be used for practical purposes. To revitalize the use of this crowd-sourced information, we propose using social tags to link and cluster artworks based on an experimental study using an online collection at the Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art (GMoMA). We view social tagging as a folksonomy, where artworks are classified by keywords of the crowd's various interpretations and one artwork can belong to several different categories simultaneously. To leverage this strength of social tags, we used a clustering method called "link communities" to detect overlapping communities in a network of artworks constructed by computing similarities between all artwork pairs. We used this framework to identify semantic relationships and clusters of similar artworks. By comparing the clustering results with curators' manual classification results, we demonstrated the potential of social tagging data for automatically clustering artworks in a way that reflects the dynamic perspectives of crowds.
    Type
    a
  7. Fox, M.J.: Communities of practice, gender and social tagging (2012) 0.01 
    0.009388922 = product of:
  0.032861225 = sum of:
    0.026331145 = weight(_text_:u in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026331145 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
    0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006530081 = score(doc=873,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Social or collaborative tagging enables users to organize and label resources on the web. Libraries and other information environments hope that tagging can complement professional subject access with user-created terms. But who are the taggers, and does their language represent that of the user population? Some language theorists believe that inherent variables, such as gender or race, can be responsible for language use, whereas other researchers endorse more multiply-influenced practice-based approaches, where interactions with others affect language use more than a single variable. To explore whether linguistic variation in tagging is influenced more by gender or context, in this exploratory study, I will analyze the content and quantity of tags used on LibraryThing. This study seeks to dismantle stereotypical views of women's language use and to suggest a community of practice-based approach to analyzing social tags.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  8. Chan, L.M.: Social bookmarking and subject indexing (2011) 0.01 
    0.009113826 = product of:
  0.03189839 = sum of:
    0.026456656 = product of:
      0.052913312 = sum of:
        0.052913312 = weight(_text_:p in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052913312 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0054417336 = weight(_text_:a in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054417336 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
    Type
    a
  9. Aagaard, H.: Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library (2011) 0.01 
    0.009113826 = product of:
  0.03189839 = sum of:
    0.026456656 = product of:
      0.052913312 = sum of:
        0.052913312 = weight(_text_:p in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052913312 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0054417336 = weight(_text_:a in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054417336 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
    Type
    a
  10. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.01 
    0.0077249487 = product of:
  0.027037319 = sum of:
    0.018519659 = product of:
      0.037039317 = sum of:
        0.037039317 = weight(_text_:p in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037039317 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008517661 = weight(_text_:a in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008517661 = score(doc=4647,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
    Type
    a
  11. Oudenaar, H.; Bullard, J.: NOT A BOOK : goodreads and the risks of social cataloging with insufficient direction (2024) 0.01 
    0.0077249487 = product of:
  0.027037319 = sum of:
    0.018519659 = product of:
      0.037039317 = sum of:
        0.037039317 = weight(_text_:p in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037039317 = score(doc=1156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008517661 = weight(_text_:a in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008517661 = score(doc=1156,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Social cataloging websites, such as Goodreads, LibraryThing, and StoryGraph are widely popular with individuals who want to track their reading and read reviews. Goodreads is one of the most popular sites with 90 million registered users as of 2019. This paper studies a Goodreads cataloging rule, NOT A BOOK (NAB), through which users designate items as invalid to the site's scope while preserving some of their metadata. By reviewing NAB, we identify thirteen types of invalid items. We go on to discuss how these item types unevenly reflect the rule itself and the emergence of a "non-book" sense through social cataloging.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.2, p.203-227
    Type
    a
  12. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.0068084425 = product of:
  0.023829548 = sum of:
    0.0060840435 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060840435 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.017745504 = product of:
      0.03549101 = sum of:
        0.03549101 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03549101 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
    Type
    a
  13. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.01 
    0.0066213845 = product of:
  0.023174845 = sum of:
    0.015873993 = product of:
      0.031747986 = sum of:
        0.031747986 = weight(_text_:p in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031747986 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007300853 = weight(_text_:a in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007300853 = score(doc=752,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine three models of subject indexing (i.e. expert-led indexing, author-generated indexing, and user-orientated indexing); and to compare and contrast two user-orientated indexing approaches (i.e. the theoretically-based Democratic Indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs). Design/methodology/approach - The approach to examining Flickr and Democratic Indexing is evaluative. The limitations of Flickr are described and examples are provided. The Democratic Indexing approach, which the authors believe offers a method of marshalling a "free" user-indexed archive to provide useful retrieval functions, is described. Findings - The examination of both Flickr and the Democratic Indexing approach suggests that, despite Shirky's claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of "representative authority". Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature of user-based indexing and social tagging.
    Type
    a
  14. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.01 
    0.0061678975 = product of:
  0.02158764 = sum of:
    0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006530081 = score(doc=3601,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.015057558 = product of:
      0.030115116 = sum of:
        0.030115116 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030115116 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  15. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.01 
    0.0059179356 = product of:
  0.020712774 = sum of:
    0.005655216 = weight(_text_:a in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005655216 = score(doc=3602,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.015057558 = product of:
      0.030115116 = sum of:
        0.030115116 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030115116 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  16. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.01 
    0.005854702 = product of:
  0.020491457 = sum of:
    0.015873993 = product of:
      0.031747986 = sum of:
        0.031747986 = weight(_text_:p in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031747986 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0046174643 = weight(_text_:a in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046174643 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.
    Type
    a
  17. Rafferty, P.; Murphy, H.: Is there nothing outside the tags? : towards a poststructuralist analysis of social tagging (2015) 0.01 
    0.0058363047 = product of:
  0.020427065 = sum of:
    0.013228328 = product of:
      0.026456656 = sum of:
        0.026456656 = weight(_text_:p in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026456656 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0071987375 = weight(_text_:a in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071987375 = score(doc=1792,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of the research is to explore relationships between social tagging and key poststructuralist principles; to devise and construct an analytical framework through which key poststructuralist principles are converted into workable research questions and applied to analyse Librarything tags, and to assess the validity of performing such an analysis. The research hypothesis is that tagging represents an imperfect analogy for the poststructuralist project Design/methodology/approach Tags from LibraryThing and from a library OPAC were compared and constrasted with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and publishers' descriptions. Research questions derived from poststructuralism, asked whether tags destabilise meaning, whether and how far the death of the author is expressed in tags, and whether tags deconstruct LCSH. Findings Tags can temporarily destabilise meaning by obfuscating the structure of a word. Meaning is destabilised, perhaps only momentarily, and then it is recreated; it might resemble the original meaning, or it may not, however any attempt to make tags useful or functional necessarily imposes some form of structure. The analysis indicates that in tagging, the author, if not dead, is ignored. Authoritative interpretations are not pervasively mimicked in the tags. In relation to LCSH, tagging decentres the dominant view, but neither exposes nor judges it. Nor does tagging achieve the final stage of the deconstructive process, showing the dominant view to be a constructed reality. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to have attempted a critical theoretical approach to social tagging. It offers a novel methodological approach to undertaking analysis based on poststructuralist theory.
    Type
    a
  18. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01 
    0.0057839258 = product of:
  0.02024374 = sum of:
    0.007695774 = weight(_text_:a in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007695774 = score(doc=515,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.012547966 = product of:
      0.025095932 = sum of:
        0.025095932 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025095932 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, 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=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    A new collaborative approach in information organization and sharing has recently arisen, known as collaborative tagging or social indexing. A key element of collaborative tagging is the concept of collective intelligence (CI), which is a shared intelligence among all participants. This research investigates the phenomenon of social tagging in the context of CI with the aim to serve as a stepping-stone towards the mining of truly valuable social tags for web resources. This study focuses on assessing and evaluating the degree of CI embedded in social tagging over time in terms of two-parameter values, number of participants, and top frequency ranking window. Five different metrics were adopted and utilized for assessing the similarity between ranking lists: overlapList, overlapRank, Footrule, Fagin's measure, and the Inverse Rank measure. The result of this study demonstrates that a substantial degree of CI is most likely to be achieved when somewhere between the first 200 and 400 people have participated in tagging, and that a target degree of CI can be projected by controlling the two factors along with the selection of a similarity metric. The study also tests some experimental conditions for detecting social tags with high CI degree. The results of this study can be applicable to the study of filtering social tags based on CI; filtered social tags may be utilized for the metadata creation of tagged resources and possibly for the retrieval of tagged resources.
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
    Type
    a
  19. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01 
    0.0057839258 = product of:
  0.02024374 = sum of:
    0.007695774 = weight(_text_:a in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007695774 = score(doc=5492,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
    0.012547966 = product of:
      0.025095932 = sum of:
        0.025095932 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025095932 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, 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=5492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose Online knowledge communities make great contributions to global knowledge sharing and innovation. Resource tagging approaches have been widely adopted in such communities to describe, annotate and organize knowledge resources mainly through users' participation. However, it is unclear what causes the adoption of a particular resource tagging approach. The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that drive users to use a hybrid social tagging approach. Design/methodology/approach Technology acceptance model and social cognitive theory are adopted to support an integrated model proposed in this paper. Zhihu, one of the most popular online knowledge communities in China, is taken as the survey context. A survey was conducted with a questionnaire and collected data were analyzed through structural equation model. Findings A new hybrid social resource tagging approach was refined and described. The empirical results revealed that self-efficacy, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use exert positive effect on users' attitude. Moreover, social influence, PU and attitude impact significantly on users' intention to use a hybrid social resource tagging approach. Originality/value Theoretically, this study enriches the type of resource tagging approaches and recognizes factors influencing user adoption to use it. Regarding the practical parts, the results provide online information system providers and designers with referential strategies to improve the performance of the current tagging approaches and promote them.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  20. Ransom, N.; Rafferty, P.: Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval (2011) 0.01 
    0.0053343037 = product of:
  0.018670062 = sum of:
    0.013228328 = product of:
      0.026456656 = sum of:
        0.026456656 = weight(_text_:p in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026456656 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0054417336 = weight(_text_:a in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054417336 = score(doc=296,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Types

Themes