Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Knautz, K.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in videos (2011) 0.01 
    0.012192531 = product of:
  0.024385061 = sum of:
    0.024385061 = product of:
      0.097540244 = sum of:
        0.097540244 = weight(_text_:authors in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097540244 = score(doc=295,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22361259 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.
  2. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01 
    0.009968519 = product of:
  0.019937038 = sum of:
    0.019937038 = product of:
      0.039874077 = sum of:
        0.039874077 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039874077 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  3. Kipp, M.E.I.: Tagging of biomedical articles on CiteULike : a comparison of user, author and professional indexing (2011) 0.01 
    0.008447232 = product of:
  0.016894463 = sum of:
    0.016894463 = product of:
      0.067577854 = sum of:
        0.067577854 = weight(_text_:authors in 4557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067577854 = score(doc=4557,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22361259 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4557, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4557)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  4. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01 
    0.0083071 = product of:
  0.0166142 = sum of:
    0.0166142 = product of:
      0.0332284 = sum of:
        0.0332284 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0332284 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  5. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.01 
    0.0083071 = product of:
  0.0166142 = sum of:
    0.0166142 = product of:
      0.0332284 = sum of:
        0.0332284 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0332284 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  6. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01 
    0.0083071 = product of:
  0.0166142 = sum of:
    0.0166142 = product of:
      0.0332284 = sum of:
        0.0332284 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0332284 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  7. Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013) 0.01 
    0.0070393602 = product of:
  0.0140787205 = sum of:
    0.0140787205 = product of:
      0.056314882 = sum of:
        0.056314882 = weight(_text_:authors in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056314882 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22361259 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.

Authors

Languages

Themes