Search (56 results, page 2 of 3)

0.006584515 = product of:
  0.0460916 = sum of:
    0.0379556 = weight(_text_:subject in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0379556 = score(doc=2666,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.008136002 = product of:
      0.016272005 = sum of:
        0.016272005 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016272005 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

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

0.00576784 = product of:
  0.04037488 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 157 - Classification and Indexing

0.00576784 = product of:
  0.04037488 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to determine semantic types for tags in social tagging systems. In social tagging systems, the determination of the semantic type of tags plays an important role in tag classification, increasing the semantic information of tags and establishing mapping relations between tagged resources and a normed ontology. The research reported in this paper constructs the semantic type library that is needed based on the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) and FrameNet and determines the semantic type of selected tags that have been pretreated via direct matching using the Semantic Navigator tool, the Semantic Type Word Sense Disambiguation (STWSD) tools in UMLS, and artificial matching. And finally, we verify the feasibility of the determination of semantic type for tags by empirical analysis.

0.005739506 = product of:
  0.04017654 = sum of:
    0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030006537 = score(doc=2648,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.

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

0.0054379716 = product of:
  0.0380658 = sum of:
    0.0190329 = weight(_text_:classification in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0190329 = score(doc=533,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.0190329 = weight(_text_:classification in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0190329 = score(doc=533,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.

0.005044075 = product of:
  0.035308525 = sum of:
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.004806533 = product of:
  0.03364573 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.

0.004806533 = product of:
  0.03364573 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0036373418 = product of:
  0.05092278 = sum of:
    0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05092278 = score(doc=309,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.

Source

Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

0.0031500303 = product of:
  0.044100422 = sum of:
    0.044100422 = weight(_text_:subject in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044100422 = score(doc=3113,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

A longstanding area of study in indexing is the identification of factors affecting vocabulary usage and consistency. This topic has seen a recent resurgence with a focus on social tagging. Tagging data for scholarly articles made available by the social bookmarking Website CiteULike (www.citeulike.org) were used to test the use of inter-indexer/tagger consistency density values, based on a method developed by the authors by comparing calculations for highly tagged documents representing three subject areas (Science, Social Science, Social Software). The analysis revealed that the developed method is viable for a large dataset. The findings also indicated that there were no significant differences in tagging consistency among the three topic areas, demonstrating that vocabulary usage in a relatively new subject area like social software is no more inconsistent than the more established subject areas investigated. The implications of the method used and the findings are discussed.

0.0030311183 = product of:
  0.042435654 = sum of:
    0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042435654 = score(doc=3707,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Social tagging or collaborative tagging has become a new trend in the organization, management, and discovery of digital information. The rapid growth of shared information mostly controlled by social tags poses a new challenge for social tag-based information organization and retrieval. A plausible approach for this challenge is linking social tags to a controlled vocabulary. As an introductory step for this approach, this study investigates ways of predicting relevant subject headings for resources from social tags assigned to the resources. The prediction of subject headings was measured by five different similarity measures: tf-idf, cosine-based similarity (CoS), Jaccard similarity (or Jaccard coefficient; JS), Mutual information (MI), and information radius (IRad). Their results were compared to those by professionals. The results show that a CoS measure based on top five social tags was most effective. Inclusions of more social tags only aggravate the performance. The performance of JS is comparable to the performance of CoS while tf-idf is comparable with up to 70% less than the best performance. MI and IRad have inferior performance compared to the other methods. This study demonstrates the application of the similarity measuring techniques to the prediction of correct Library of Congress subject headings.

0.002872974 = product of:
  0.04022163 = sum of:
    0.04022163 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04022163 = score(doc=4917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 4917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4917)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.002625025 = product of:
  0.03675035 = sum of:
    0.03675035 = weight(_text_:subject in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03675035 = score(doc=4064,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval was examined in this pilot study. Many tags are subject related and could work well as index terms or entry vocabulary; however, folksonomies also include relationships that are traditionally not included in controlled vocabularies including affective or time and task related tags and the user name of the tagger. Participants searched a social bookmarking tool, specialising in academic articles (CiteULike), and an online journal database (Pubmed) for articles relevant to a given information request. Screen capture software was used to collect participant actions and a semi-structured interview asked them to describe their search process. Preliminary results showed that participants did use tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, participants also used controlled vocabularies in the journal database to locate useful search terms and links to related articles supplied by Pubmed. Additionally, participants reported using user names of taggers and group names to help select resources by relevance. The inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants. This study suggests that while users value social and subjective factors when searching, they also find utility in objective factors such as subject headings. Most importantly, users are interested in the ability of systems to connect them with related articles whether via subject access or other means.

0.0025719889 = product of:
  0.036007844 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 4557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=4557,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 4557, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4557)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper examines the context of online indexing from the viewpoint of three different groups: users, authors, and professional indexers. User tags, author keywords, and descriptors were collected from academic journal articles, which were both indexed in PubMed and tagged on CiteULike, and analysed. Descriptive statistics, informetric measures, and thesaural term comparison shows that there are important differences in the use of keywords among the three groups in addition to similarities, which can be used to enhance support for search and browse. While tags and author keywords were found that matched descriptors exactly, other terms which did not match but provided important expansion to the indexing lexicon were found. These additional terms could be used to enhance support for searching and browsing in article databases as well as to provide invaluable data for entry vocabulary and emergent terminology for regular updates to indexing systems. Additionally, the study suggests that tags support organisation by association to task, projects, and subject while making important connections to traditional systems which classify into subject categories.

0.0025719889 = product of:
  0.036007844 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0021433241 = product of:
  0.030006537 = sum of:
    0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030006537 = score(doc=383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.

0.0021217826 = product of:
  0.029704956 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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'.

0.0020356115 = product of:
  0.02849856 = sum of:
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=3421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Data integration and mediation have become central concerns of information technology over the past few decades. With the advent of the Web and the rapid increases in the amount of data and the number of Web documents and users, researchers have focused on enhancing the interoperability of data through the development of metadata schemes. Other researchers have looked to the wealth of metadata generated by bookmarking sites on the Social Web. While several existing ontologies have capitalized on the semantics of metadata created by tagging activities, the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO) emphasizes the structure of tagging activities to facilitate modeling of tagging data and the integration of data from different bookmarking sites as well as the alignment of tagging ontologies. UTO is described and its utility in modeling, harvesting, integrating, searching, and analyzing data is demonstrated with metadata harvested from three major social tagging systems (Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube).

0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.