Search (141 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.03 
    0.03186433 = product of:
  0.06372866 = sum of:
    0.06372866 = sum of:
      0.0062335427 = weight(_text_:a in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0062335427 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.05749512 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05749512 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.15-22
    Type
    a
  2. Knautz, K.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in videos (2011) 0.03 
    0.030266892 = sum of:
  0.026370928 = product of:
    0.10548371 = sum of:
      0.10548371 = weight(_text_:authors in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10548371 = score(doc=295,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
  0.0038959642 = product of:
    0.0077919285 = sum of:
      0.0077919285 = weight(_text_:a in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0077919285 = score(doc=295,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
    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.
    Type
    a
  3. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.03 
    0.029765315 = product of:
  0.05953063 = sum of:
    0.05953063 = sum of:
      0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008711642 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.050818987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050818987 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
    Pages
    S.14-22
    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
    Type
    a
  4. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.03 
    0.029010924 = product of:
  0.058021847 = sum of:
    0.058021847 = sum of:
      0.0077136164 = weight(_text_:a in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0077136164 = score(doc=2889,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.05030823 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05030823 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
    Type
    a
  5. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.03 
    0.026235826 = product of:
  0.052471653 = sum of:
    0.052471653 = sum of:
      0.009350315 = weight(_text_:a in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009350315 = score(doc=3601,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043121338 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  6. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.03 
    0.025609475 = product of:
  0.05121895 = sum of:
    0.05121895 = sum of:
      0.00809761 = weight(_text_:a in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00809761 = score(doc=3602,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043121338 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  7. Golub, K.; Moon, J.; Nielsen, M.L.; Tudhope, D.: EnTag: Enhanced Tagging for Discovery (2008) 0.03 
    0.025172172 = sum of:
  0.021315364 = product of:
    0.08526146 = sum of:
      0.08526146 = weight(_text_:authors in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08526146 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0038568082 = product of:
    0.0077136164 = sum of:
      0.0077136164 = weight(_text_:a in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0077136164 = score(doc=2294,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.
  8. Wolfram, D.; Olson, H.A.; Bloom, R.: Measuring consistency for multiple taggers using vector space modeling (2009) 0.02 
    0.024454964 = sum of:
  0.018270312 = product of:
    0.07308125 = sum of:
      0.07308125 = weight(_text_:authors in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07308125 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3113, 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=3113)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0061846524 = product of:
    0.012369305 = sum of:
      0.012369305 = weight(_text_:a in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012369305 = score(doc=3113,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  9. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.02 
    0.023898248 = product of:
  0.047796495 = sum of:
    0.047796495 = sum of:
      0.0046751574 = weight(_text_:a in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0046751574 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043121338 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
    Type
    a
  10. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.02 
    0.023898248 = product of:
  0.047796495 = sum of:
    0.047796495 = sum of:
      0.0046751574 = weight(_text_:a in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0046751574 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043121338 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  11. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.02 
    0.023497296 = sum of:
  0.018270312 = product of:
    0.07308125 = sum of:
      0.07308125 = weight(_text_:authors in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07308125 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 752, 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=752)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.005226985 = product of:
    0.01045397 = sum of:
      0.01045397 = weight(_text_:a in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01045397 = score(doc=752,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  12. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.02 
    0.02347695 = product of:
  0.0469539 = sum of:
    0.0469539 = sum of:
      0.011019452 = weight(_text_:a in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011019452 = score(doc=515,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    Abstract
    A new collaborative approach in information organization and sharing has recently arisen, known as collaborative tagging or social indexing. A key element of collaborative tagging is the concept of collective intelligence (CI), which is a shared intelligence among all participants. This research investigates the phenomenon of social tagging in the context of CI with the aim to serve as a stepping-stone towards the mining of truly valuable social tags for web resources. This study focuses on assessing and evaluating the degree of CI embedded in social tagging over time in terms of two-parameter values, number of participants, and top frequency ranking window. Five different metrics were adopted and utilized for assessing the similarity between ranking lists: overlapList, overlapRank, Footrule, Fagin's measure, and the Inverse Rank measure. The result of this study demonstrates that a substantial degree of CI is most likely to be achieved when somewhere between the first 200 and 400 people have participated in tagging, and that a target degree of CI can be projected by controlling the two factors along with the selection of a similarity metric. The study also tests some experimental conditions for detecting social tags with high CI degree. The results of this study can be applicable to the study of filtering social tags based on CI; filtered social tags may be utilized for the metadata creation of tagged resources and possibly for the retrieval of tagged resources.
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
    Type
    a
  13. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.02 
    0.02347695 = product of:
  0.0469539 = sum of:
    0.0469539 = sum of:
      0.011019452 = weight(_text_:a in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011019452 = score(doc=5492,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    Abstract
    Purpose Online knowledge communities make great contributions to global knowledge sharing and innovation. Resource tagging approaches have been widely adopted in such communities to describe, annotate and organize knowledge resources mainly through users' participation. However, it is unclear what causes the adoption of a particular resource tagging approach. The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that drive users to use a hybrid social tagging approach. Design/methodology/approach Technology acceptance model and social cognitive theory are adopted to support an integrated model proposed in this paper. Zhihu, one of the most popular online knowledge communities in China, is taken as the survey context. A survey was conducted with a questionnaire and collected data were analyzed through structural equation model. Findings A new hybrid social resource tagging approach was refined and described. The empirical results revealed that self-efficacy, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use exert positive effect on users' attitude. Moreover, social influence, PU and attitude impact significantly on users' intention to use a hybrid social resource tagging approach. Originality/value Theoretically, this study enriches the type of resource tagging approaches and recognizes factors influencing user adoption to use it. Regarding the practical parts, the results provide online information system providers and designers with referential strategies to improve the performance of the current tagging approaches and promote them.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  14. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.02 
    0.022323046 = product of:
  0.04464609 = sum of:
    0.04464609 = sum of:
      0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008711642 = score(doc=2648,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  15. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.02 
    0.022323046 = product of:
  0.04464609 = sum of:
    0.04464609 = sum of:
      0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008711642 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    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
    Type
    a
  16. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.02 
    0.022323046 = product of:
  0.04464609 = sum of:
    0.04464609 = sum of:
      0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008711642 = score(doc=2891,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  17. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.02 
    0.02186319 = product of:
  0.04372638 = sum of:
    0.04372638 = sum of:
      0.0077919285 = weight(_text_:a in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0077919285 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    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".
  18. Kipp, M.E.I.: Tagging of biomedical articles on CiteULike : a comparison of user, author and professional indexing (2011) 0.02 
    0.021576148 = sum of:
  0.018270312 = product of:
    0.07308125 = sum of:
      0.07308125 = weight(_text_:authors in 4557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07308125 = score(doc=4557,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
  0.0033058354 = product of:
    0.006611671 = sum of:
      0.006611671 = weight(_text_:a in 4557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006611671 = score(doc=4557,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4557, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4557)
    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.
    Type
    a
  19. Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013) 0.02 
    0.019581081 = sum of:
  0.0152252605 = product of:
    0.060901042 = sum of:
      0.060901042 = weight(_text_:authors in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060901042 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
  0.004355821 = product of:
    0.008711642 = sum of:
      0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008711642 = score(doc=1091,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    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.
    Type
    a
  20. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.02 
    0.019542363 = product of:
  0.039084725 = sum of:
    0.039084725 = sum of:
      0.010337163 = weight(_text_:a in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010337163 = score(doc=2657,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.02874756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02874756 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.
    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
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 104
  • d 36
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 127
  • el 13
  • m 6
  • b 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications