Search (61 results, page 1 of 4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.008173532 = product of:
  0.02860736 = sum of:
    0.021942623 = weight(_text_:u in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021942623 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
    0.0066647357 = weight(_text_:a in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066647357 = score(doc=101,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.

Editor

Rasmussen Pennington, D. u. L. Spiteri

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.0053234315 = product of:
  0.01863201 = sum of:
    0.0060840435 = weight(_text_:a in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060840435 = score(doc=2891,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
    0.012547966 = product of:
      0.025095932 = sum of:
        0.025095932 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025095932 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.

Date

21. 4.2016 11:23:22

Type

a

0.0014014608 = product of:
  0.009810225 = sum of:
    0.009810225 = weight(_text_:a in 4220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009810225 = score(doc=4220,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 4220, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4220)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Taxonomy construction is a resource-demanding, top-down, and time consuming effort. It does not always cater for the prevailing context of the captured information. This paper proposes a novel approach to automatically convert tags into a hierarchical taxonomy. Folksonomy describes the process by which many users add metadata in the form of keywords or tags to shared content. Using folksonomy as a knowledge source for nominating tags, the proposed method first converts the tags into a hierarchy. This serves to harness a core set of taxonomy terms; the generated hierarchical structure facilitates users' information navigation behavior and permits personalizations. Newly acquired tags are then progressively integrated into a taxonomy in a largely automated way to complete the taxonomy creation process. Common taxonomy construction techniques are based on 3 main approaches: clustering, lexico-syntactic pattern matching, and automatic acquisition from machine-readable dictionaries. In contrast to these prevailing approaches, this paper proposes a taxonomy construction analysis based on heuristic rules and deep syntactic analysis. The proposed method requires only a relatively small corpus to create a preliminary taxonomy. The approach has been evaluated using an expert-defined taxonomy in the environmental protection domain and encouraging results were yielded.

Type

a

0.0013192756 = product of:
  0.0092349285 = sum of:
    0.0092349285 = weight(_text_:a in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0092349285 = score(doc=1370,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Large image collections on the Web need to be organized for effective retrieval. Metadata has a key role in image retrieval but rely on professionally assigned tags which is not a viable option. Current content-based image retrieval systems have not demonstrated sufficient utility on large-scale image sources on the web, and are usually used as a supplement to existing text-based image retrieval systems. We present two social tagging alternatives in the form of photo-sharing networks and image labeling games. Here we analyze these applications to evaluate their usefulness from the semantic point of view, investigating the management of social tagging for indexing. The findings of the study have shown that social tagging can generate a sizeable number of tags that can be classified as in terpretive for an image, and that tagging behaviour has a manageable and adjustable nature depending on tagging guidelines.

Type

a

0.0013192756 = product of:
  0.0092349285 = sum of:
    0.0092349285 = weight(_text_:a in 1730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0092349285 = score(doc=1730,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1730, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1730)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper presents a methodological discussion of a study of tagging quality in subject indexing. The data analysis in the study was divided into 3 phases: analysis of indexing consistency, analysis of tagging effectiveness, and analysis of the semantic values of tags. To analyze indexing consistency, this study employed the vector space model-based indexing consistency measures. An analysis of tagging effectiveness with tagging exhaustivity and tag specificity was conducted to ameliorate the drawbacks of consistency analysis based on only the quantitative measures of vocabulary matching. To further investigate the semantic values of tags at various levels of specificity, a latent semantic analysis (LSA) was conducted. To test statistical significance for the relation between tag specificity and semantic quality, correlation analysis was conducted. This research demonstrates the potential of tags for web document indexing with a complete assessment of tagging quality and provides a basis for further study of the strengths and limitations of tagging.

Type

a

0.0012891565 = product of:
  0.009024095 = sum of:
    0.009024095 = weight(_text_:a in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009024095 = score(doc=745,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of social tagging systems, the potential for using social tags as a source of metadata is being explored. Social tagging systems can simplify the involvement of a large number of users and improve the metadata-generation process. Current research is exploring social tagging systems as a mechanism to allow nonprofessional catalogers to participate in metadata generation. Because social tags are not from controlled vocabularies, there are issues that have to be addressed in finding quality terms to represent the content of a resource. This research explores ways to obtain a set of tags representing the resource from the tags provided by users. Two metrics are introduced. Annotation Dominance (AD) is a measure of the extent to which a tag term is agreed to by users. Cross Resources Annotation Discrimination (CRAD) is a measure of a tag's potential to classify a collection. It is designed to remove tags that are used too broadly or narrowly. Using the proposed measurements, the research selects important tags (meta-terms) and removes meaningless ones (tag noise) from the tags provided by users. To evaluate the proposed approach to find classificatory metadata candidates, we rely on expert users' relevance judgments comparing suggested tag terms and expert metadata terms. The results suggest that processing of user tags using the two measurements successfully identifies the terms that represent the topic categories of web resource content. The suggested tag terms can be further examined in various usages as semantic metadata for the resources.

Type

a

0.0012340694 = product of:
  0.008638485 = sum of:
    0.008638485 = weight(_text_:a in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008638485 = score(doc=2732,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Social tagging systems enable users to assign arbitrary tags to various digital resources. However, they face vague-meaning problems when users retrieve or present resources with the keyword-based tags. In order to solve these problems, this study takes advantage of Semantic Web technology and the topological characteristics of knowledge maps to develop a system that comprises a semantic tagging mechanism and triple-pattern and visual searching mechanisms. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and user acceptance of these mechanisms in a knowledge sharing context. The results show that the semantic social tagging system is more effective than a keyword-based system. The visualized knowledge map helps users capture an overview of the knowledge domain, reduce cognitive effort for the search, and obtain more enjoyment. Traditional keyword tagging with a keyword search still has the advantage of ease of use and the users had higher intention to use it. This study also proposes directions for future development of semantic social tagging systems.

Type

a