Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Stvilia, B.; Jörgensen, C.: Member activities and quality of tags in a collection of historical photographs in Flickr (2010) 0.03 
    0.025263982 = product of:
  0.05894929 = sum of:
    0.029596249 = weight(_text_:systems in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029596249 = score(doc=4117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=4117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.02166549 = weight(_text_:library in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02166549 = score(doc=4117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2477-2489
  2. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.02 
    0.023224743 = product of:
  0.081286594 = sum of:
    0.0649828 = sum of:
      0.018450128 = weight(_text_:science in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018450128 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.046532676 = weight(_text_:29 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046532676 = score(doc=164,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.016303789 = product of:
      0.032607578 = sum of:
        0.032607578 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032607578 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    29. 5.2012 13:58:08
    29. 5.2012 14:15:36
    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. Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012) 0.02 
    0.02221235 = product of:
  0.077743225 = sum of:
    0.020927707 = weight(_text_:systems in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020927707 = score(doc=432,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
    0.05681552 = product of:
      0.11363104 = sum of:
        0.11363104 = weight(_text_:applications in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11363104 = score(doc=432,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.6434642 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    For a long while, the creation of Web content required at least basic knowledge of Web technologies, meaning that for many Web users, the Web was de facto a read-only medium. This changed with the arrival of the "social Web," when Web applications started to allow users to publish Web content without technological expertise. Here, content creation is often an inclusive, iterative, and interactive process. Examples of social Web applications include blogs, social networking sites, as well as many specialized applications, for example, for saving and sharing bookmarks and publishing photos. Social semantic Web applications are social Web applications in which knowledge is expressed not only in the form of text and multimedia but also through informal to formal annotations that describe, reflect, and enhance the content. These annotations often take the shape of RDF graphs backed by ontologies, but less formal annotations such as free-form tags or tags from a controlled vocabulary may also be available. Wikis are one example of social Web applications for collecting and sharing knowledge. They allow users to easily create and edit documents, so-called wiki pages, using a Web browser. The pages in a wiki are often heavily interlinked, which makes it easy to find related information and browse the content.
    Series
    Data-centric systems and applications
  4. Matthews, B.; Jones, C.; Puzon, B.; Moon, J.; Tudhope, D.; Golub, K.; Nielsen, M.L.: ¬An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system (2010) 0.02 
    0.018206416 = product of:
  0.063722454 = sum of:
    0.020927707 = weight(_text_:systems in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020927707 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
    0.04279475 = sum of:
      0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0153751075 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
      0.027419642 = weight(_text_:29 in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027419642 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Traditional subject indexing and classification are considered infeasible in many digital collections. This paper seeks to investigate ways of enhancing social tagging via knowledge organization systems, with a view to improving the quality of tags for increased information discovery and retrieval performance. Design/methodology/approach - Enhanced tagging interfaces were developed for exemplar online repositories, and trials were undertaken with author and reader groups to evaluate the effectiveness of tagging augmented with control vocabulary for subject indexing of papers in online repositories. Findings - The results showed that using a knowledge organisation system to augment tagging does appear to increase the effectiveness of non-specialist users (that is, without information science training) in subject indexing. Research limitations/implications - While limited by the size and scope of the trials undertaken, these results do point to the usefulness of a mixed approach in supporting the subject indexing of online resources. Originality/value - The value of this work is as a guide to future developments in the practical support for resource indexing in online repositories.
    Date
    29. 8.2010 11:39:20
  5. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.02 
    0.017966425 = product of:
  0.06288248 = sum of:
    0.041434746 = weight(_text_:systems in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041434746 = score(doc=4647,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
    0.02144774 = weight(_text_:library in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02144774 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, 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.
  6. Wang, Y.; Tai, Y.; Yang, Y.: Determination of semantic types of tags in social tagging systems (2018) 0.02 
    0.017680343 = product of:
  0.0618812 = sum of:
    0.04349742 = weight(_text_:systems in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04349742 = score(doc=4648,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
    0.018383777 = weight(_text_:library in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018383777 = score(doc=4648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
  7. Konkova, E.; Göker, A.; Butterworth, R.; MacFarlane, A.: Social tagging: exploring the image, the tags, and the game (2014) 0.02 
    0.017509883 = product of:
  0.06128459 = sum of:
    0.035515495 = weight(_text_:systems in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035515495 = score(doc=1370,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
    0.025769096 = product of:
      0.05153819 = sum of:
        0.05153819 = weight(_text_:applications in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05153819 = score(doc=1370,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.2918479 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
  8. Spiteri, L.F.: Extending the scope of library discovery systems via hashtags (2018) 0.02 
    0.016570296 = product of:
  0.057996035 = sum of:
    0.033484332 = weight(_text_:systems in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033484332 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
    0.024511702 = weight(_text_:library in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024511702 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  9. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.02 
    0.016272826 = product of:
  0.05695489 = sum of:
    0.02511325 = weight(_text_:systems in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02511325 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
    0.03184164 = weight(_text_:library in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03184164 = score(doc=309,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
  10. Rorissa, A.: ¬A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection (2010) 0.01 
    0.014155135 = product of:
  0.049542967 = sum of:
    0.041855413 = weight(_text_:systems in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041855413 = score(doc=4100,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.339541 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=4100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.11, S.2230-2242
  11. Naderi, H.; Rumpler, B.: PERCIRS: a system to combine personalized and collaborative information retrieval (2010) 0.01 
    0.0138298515 = product of:
  0.048404478 = sum of:
    0.03743662 = weight(_text_:systems in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03743662 = score(doc=3960,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.3036947 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
    0.010967856 = product of:
      0.021935713 = sum of:
        0.021935713 = weight(_text_:29 in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021935713 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that utilization of the personalization techniques can be valuable to improve the efficiency of collaborative information retrieval (CIR) systems. Design/methodology/approach - A new personalized CIR system, called PERCIRS, is presented based on the user profile similarity calculation (UPSC) formulas. To this aim, the paper proposes several UPSC formulas as well as two techniques to evaluate them. As the proposed CIR system is personalized, it could not be evaluated by Cranfield, like evaluation techniques (e.g. TREC). Hence, this paper proposes a new user-centric mechanism, which enables PERCIRS to be evaluated. This mechanism is generic and can be used to evaluate any other personalized IR system. Findings - The results show that among the proposed UPSC formulas in this paper, the (query-document)-graph based formula is the most effective. After integrating this formula into PERCIRS and comparing it with nine other IR systems, it is concluded that the results of the system are better than the other IR systems. In addition, the paper shows that the complexity of the system is less that the complexity of the other CIR systems. Research limitations/implications - This system asks the users to explicitly rank the returned documents, while explicit ranking is still not widespread enough. However it believes that the users should actively participate in the IR process in order to aptly satisfy their needs to information. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in combining collaborative and personalized IR, as well as introducing a mechanism which enables the personalized IR system to be evaluated. The proposed evaluation mechanism is very valuable for developers of personalized IR systems. The paper also introduces some significant user profile similarity calculation formulas, and two techniques to evaluate them. These formulas can also be used to find the user's community in the social networks.
    Date
    29. 8.2010 12:59:10
  12. Lin, N.; Li, D.; Ding, Y.; He, B.; Qin, Z.; Tang, J.; Li, J.; Dong, T.: ¬The dynamic features of Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube (2012) 0.01 
    0.012552974 = product of:
  0.043935407 = sum of:
    0.036247853 = weight(_text_:systems in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036247853 = score(doc=4970,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=4970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This article investigates the dynamic features of social tagging vocabularies in Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube from 2003 to 2008. Three algorithms are designed to study the macro- and micro-tag growth as well as the dynamics of taggers' activities, respectively. Moreover, we propose a Tagger Tag Resource Latent Dirichlet Allocation (TTR-LDA) model to explore the evolution of topics emerging from those social vocabularies. Our results show that (a) at the macro level, tag growth in all the three tagging systems obeys power law distribution with exponents lower than 1; at the micro level, the tag growth of popular resources in all three tagging systems follows a similar power law distribution; (b) the exponents of tag growth vary in different evolving stages of resources; (c) the growth of number of taggers associated with different popular resources presents a feature of convergence over time; (d) the active level of taggers has a positive correlation with the macro-tag growth of different tagging systems; and (e) some topics evolve into several subtopics over time while others experience relatively stable stages in which their contents do not change much, and certain groups of taggers continue their interests in them.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.139-162
  13. Syn, S.Y.; Spring, M.B.: Finding subject terms for classificatory metadata from user-generated social tags (2013) 0.01 
    0.012552974 = product of:
  0.043935407 = sum of:
    0.036247853 = weight(_text_:systems in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036247853 = score(doc=745,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.964-980
  14. Li, D.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.; He, B.; Tang, J.; Yan, E.; Lin, N.; Qin, Z.; Dong, T.: Modeling topic and community structure in social tagging : the TTR-LDA-Community model (2011) 0.01 
    0.010652515 = product of:
  0.0372838 = sum of:
    0.029596249 = weight(_text_:systems in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029596249 = score(doc=4759,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The presence of social networks in complex systems has made networks and community structure a focal point of study in many domains. Previous studies have focused on the structural emergence and growth of communities and on the topics displayed within the network. However, few scholars have closely examined the relationship between the thematic and structural properties of networks. Therefore, this article proposes the Tagger Tag Resource-Latent Dirichlet Allocation-Community model (TTR-LDA-Community model), which combines the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model with the Girvan-Newman community detection algorithm through an inference mechanism. Using social tagging data from Delicious, this article demonstrates the clustering of active taggers into communities, the topic distributions within communities, and the ranking of taggers, tags, and resources within these communities. The data analysis evaluates patterns in community structure and topical affiliations diachronically. The article evaluates the effectiveness of community detection and the inference mechanism embedded in the model and finds that the TTR-LDA-Community model outperforms other traditional models in tag prediction. This has implications for scholars in domains interested in community detection, profiling, and recommender systems.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.9, S.1849-1866
  15. Social tagging in a linked data environment. Edited by Diane Rasmussen Pennington and Louise F. Spiteri. London, UK: Facet Publishing, 2018. 240 pp. £74.95 (paperback). (ISBN 9781783303380) (2019) 0.01 
    0.0105125895 = product of:
  0.036794063 = sum of:
    0.015319815 = weight(_text_:library in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015319815 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.021474248 = product of:
      0.042948496 = sum of:
        0.042948496 = weight(_text_:applications in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042948496 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.
  16. Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013) 0.01 
    0.009939852 = product of:
  0.03478948 = sum of:
    0.013315234 = product of:
      0.026630469 = sum of:
        0.026630469 = weight(_text_:science in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026630469 = score(doc=1091,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.021474248 = product of:
      0.042948496 = sum of:
        0.042948496 = weight(_text_:applications in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042948496 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.2045-2057
  17. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Fried, M.; Toma, I.; Yan, E.; Foo, S.; Milojevicacute, S.: Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data (2010) 0.01 
    0.009810947 = product of:
  0.034338314 = sum of:
    0.02511325 = weight(_text_:systems in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02511325 = score(doc=3421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
    0.009225064 = product of:
      0.018450128 = sum of:
        0.018450128 = weight(_text_:science in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018450128 = score(doc=3421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.505-521
  18. Golbeck, J.; Koepfler, J.; Emmerling, B.: ¬An experimental study of social tagging behavior and image content (2011) 0.01 
    0.009810947 = product of:
  0.034338314 = sum of:
    0.02511325 = weight(_text_:systems in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02511325 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
    0.009225064 = product of:
      0.018450128 = sum of:
        0.018450128 = weight(_text_:science in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018450128 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Social tags have become an important tool for improving access to online resources, particularly non-text media. With the dramatic growth of user-generated content, the importance of tags is likely to grow. However, while tagging behavior is well studied, the relationship between tagging behavior and features of the media being tagged is not well understood. In this paper, we examine the relationship between tagging behavior and image type. Through a lab-based study with 51 subjects and an analysis of an online dataset of image tags, we show that there are significant differences in the number, order, and type of tags that users assign based on their past experience with an image, the type of image being tagged, and other image features. We present these results and discuss the significant implications this work has for tag-based search algorithms, tag recommendation systems, and other interface issues.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.9, S.1750-1760
  19. Estellés Arolas, E.; González Ladrón-de-Guevar, F.: Uses of explicit and implicit tags in social bookmarking (2012) 0.01 
    0.009810947 = product of:
  0.034338314 = sum of:
    0.02511325 = weight(_text_:systems in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02511325 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
    0.009225064 = product of:
      0.018450128 = sum of:
        0.018450128 = weight(_text_:science in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018450128 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Although Web 2.0 contains many tools with different functionalities, they all share a common social nature. One tool in particular, social bookmarking systems (SBSs), allows users to store and share links to different types of resources, i.e., websites, videos, images. To identify and classify these resources so that they can be retrieved and shared, fragments of text are used. These fragments of text, usually words, are called tags. A tag that is found on the inside of a resource text is referred to as an obvious or explicit tag. There are also nonobvious or implicit tags, which don't appear in the resource text. The purpose of this article is to describe the present situation of the SBSs tool and then to also determine the principal features of and how to use explicit tags. It will be taken into special consideration which HTML tags with explicit tags are used more frequently.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.313-322
  20. Xu, C.; Zhang, Q.: ¬The dominant factor of social tags for users' decision behavior on e-commerce websites : color or text (2019) 0.01 
    0.009085585 = product of:
  0.031799547 = sum of:
    0.020927707 = weight(_text_:systems in 5359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020927707 = score(doc=5359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5359)
    0.0108718425 = product of:
      0.021743685 = sum of:
        0.021743685 = weight(_text_:science in 5359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021743685 = score(doc=5359,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 5359, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Colored Tags (abbr.Tag) as a unique type of social tags is used on e-commerce websites (e.g., Taobao) to summarize the high-frequency keywords extracted from users' online reviews about products they bought before. Tag is represented inked red or green according to users' personal experiences and judgments about purchased items: red for positive comments, green for negative ones. The valence of users' emotion induced by red or green is controversial. This study firstly discovers that colored tags inked in red incite users' positive emotion (evaluations) and colored tags inked in green incite negative emotion (evaluations) using an ERP experiment, which is manifested in ERP components (e.g., N170, N2c, and LPC). There are two main features of Tag: the text of Tag (abbr. Text) and the color of Tag (abbr.Color). Our study then proves that Color (red or green) is the dominant factor in users' decision behavior compared with Text under the high cognitive load condition, while users' decision behavior is influenced by Text (positive tags or negative tags) predominately rather than by Color under the low cognitive load condition with the help of Eye tracking instrument. Those findings can help to design colored tags for recommendation systems on e-commerce websites and other online platforms.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem 'Special issue on neuro-information science'.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.9, S.942-953

Authors

Languages

  • e 51
  • d 4
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 53
  • el 2
  • m 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications