Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033627126 = product of:
  0.06725425 = sum of:
    0.030948812 = weight(_text_:science in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030948812 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
    0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03630544 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to identify and categorize social tagging trends and developments as revealed by the analysis of library and information science scholarly and professional literature.

Source

http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2007/programme.html

0.013755627 = product of:
  0.055022508 = sum of:
    0.055022508 = weight(_text_:research in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055022508 = score(doc=531,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.38217562 = fieldWeight in 531, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=531)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

KoT (Kinds of Tags) is an ongoing joint collaborative research effort with many participants worldwide, including the University of Minho, UKOLN, the University of Bologna, the Université Libre de Bruxelles and La Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. It is focused on the analysis of tags that are in common use in the practice of social tagging, with the aim of discovering how easily tags can be 'normalised' for interoperability with standard metadata environments such as the DC Metadata Terms.

Source

http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2007/programme.html

0.011116223 = product of:
  0.044464894 = sum of:
    0.044464894 = weight(_text_:research in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044464894 = score(doc=533,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.3088445 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.
Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?

Source

http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2007/programme.html

0.005672725 = product of:
  0.0226909 = sum of:
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=2813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0042731995 = product of:
  0.017092798 = sum of:
    0.017092798 = product of:
      0.034185596 = sum of:
        0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034185596 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".