Search (31 results, page 2 of 2)

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.

0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 1730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=1730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1730, 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=1730)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0017956087 = product of:
  0.02513852 = sum of:
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=1046,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1046, 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=1046)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study aims to identify the categorical characteristics and usage patterns of the most popular image tags in Flickr. The "metadata usage ratio" is introduced as a means of assessing the usage of a popular tag as metadata. We also compare how popular tags are used as image tags or metadata in the Flickr general collection and the Library of Congress's photostream (LCP), also in Flickr. The Flickr popular tags in the list overall are categorically stable, and the changes that do appear reflect Flickr users' evolving technology-driven cultural experience. The popular tags in Flickr had a high number of generic objects and specific locations-related tags and were rarely at the abstract level. Conversely, the popular tags in the LCP describe more in the specific objects and time categories. Flickr users copied the Library of Congress-supplied metadata that related to specific objects or events and standard bibliographic information (e.g., author, format, time references) as popular tags in the LCP. Those popular tags related to generic objects and events showed a high metadata usage ratio, while those related to specific locations and objects showed a low image metadata usage ratio. Popular tags in Flickr appeared less frequently as image metadata when describing specific objects than specific times and locations for historical images in Flickr LCP collections. Understanding how people contribute image tags or image metadata in Flickr helps determine what users need to describe and query images, and could help improve image browsing and retrieval.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=4117,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=3828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.

8.7171455E-4 = product of:
  0.0122040035 = sum of:
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, 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=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a

7.264289E-4 = product of:
  0.010170003 = sum of:
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

25.12.2012 15:22:37

7.264289E-4 = product of:
  0.010170003 = sum of:
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22