Search (112 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.03 
    0.032460846 = product of:
  0.06492169 = sum of:
    0.06492169 = sum of:
      0.014665511 = weight(_text_:e in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014665511 = score(doc=2889,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.19254501 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.05025618 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05025618 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Abstract
    Als dynamische und einfache Form der Auszeichnung von Ressourcen kann sich Tagging im E-Learning positiv auf Partizipation, soziale Navigation und das Verständnis der Lernenden auswirken. Dieser Beitrag beleuchtet verschiedene Möglichkeiten des Einsatzes von Social Tagging in Lehrportalen und E-LearningKursen. Hierzu werden zunächst drei konkrete Anwendungsfälle dargestellt. Anschließend werden aus den Anwendungsfällen gewonnene Erkenntnisse für Lehr-/Lernszenarien zusammengefasst.
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  2. Knautz, K.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in videos (2011) 0.03 
    0.029367622 = sum of:
  0.026343646 = product of:
    0.10537458 = sum of:
      0.10537458 = weight(_text_:authors in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10537458 = score(doc=295,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24157293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
  0.0030239774 = product of:
    0.006047955 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, 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.
    Language
    e
  3. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.03 
    0.028407183 = product of:
  0.056814365 = sum of:
    0.056814365 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.05076641 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05076641 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Language
    e
    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
  4. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.03 
    0.026670225 = product of:
  0.05334045 = sum of:
    0.05334045 = sum of:
      0.0102637205 = weight(_text_:e in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0102637205 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.13475344 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.043076728 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043076728 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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
    Language
    e
  5. Golub, K.; Moon, J.; Nielsen, M.L.; Tudhope, D.: EnTag: Enhanced Tagging for Discovery (2008) 0.03 
    0.025526881 = sum of:
  0.021293312 = product of:
    0.08517325 = sum of:
      0.08517325 = weight(_text_:authors in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08517325 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24157293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
  0.004233568 = product of:
    0.008467136 = sum of:
      0.008467136 = weight(_text_:e in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008467136 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.1111659 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, 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/.
    Language
    e
  6. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.03 
    0.025167137 = product of:
  0.050334275 = sum of:
    0.050334275 = sum of:
      0.0072575454 = weight(_text_:e in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072575454 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.043076728 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043076728 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Language
    e
  7. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.03 
    0.025167137 = product of:
  0.050334275 = sum of:
    0.050334275 = sum of:
      0.0072575454 = weight(_text_:e in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072575454 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.043076728 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043076728 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Language
    e
  8. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.03 
    0.025167137 = product of:
  0.050334275 = sum of:
    0.050334275 = sum of:
      0.0072575454 = weight(_text_:e in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072575454 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.043076728 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043076728 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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
  9. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.02 
    0.021880183 = sum of:
  0.01825141 = product of:
    0.07300564 = sum of:
      0.07300564 = weight(_text_:authors in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07300564 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24157293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
  0.0036287727 = product of:
    0.0072575454 = sum of:
      0.0072575454 = weight(_text_:e in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072575454 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, 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.
    Language
    e
  10. Wolfram, D.; Olson, H.A.; Bloom, R.: Measuring consistency for multiple taggers using vector space modeling (2009) 0.02 
    0.021880183 = sum of:
  0.01825141 = product of:
    0.07300564 = sum of:
      0.07300564 = weight(_text_:authors in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07300564 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24157293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
  0.0036287727 = product of:
    0.0072575454 = sum of:
      0.0072575454 = weight(_text_:e in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072575454 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, 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.
    Language
    e
  11. Kipp, M.E.I.: Tagging of biomedical articles on CiteULike : a comparison of user, author and professional indexing (2011) 0.02 
    0.021880183 = sum of:
  0.01825141 = product of:
    0.07300564 = sum of:
      0.07300564 = weight(_text_:authors in 4557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07300564 = score(doc=4557,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24157293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
  0.0036287727 = product of:
    0.0072575454 = sum of:
      0.0072575454 = weight(_text_:e in 4557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072575454 = score(doc=4557,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 4557, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, 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.
    Language
    e
  12. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.02 
    0.020972613 = product of:
  0.041945226 = sum of:
    0.041945226 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.035897274 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035897274 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    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".
    Language
    e
  13. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.02 
    0.020972613 = product of:
  0.041945226 = sum of:
    0.041945226 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.035897274 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035897274 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Language
    e
    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
  14. 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 
    0.020972613 = product of:
  0.041945226 = sum of:
    0.041945226 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.035897274 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035897274 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Language
    e
    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
  15. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.02 
    0.020972613 = product of:
  0.041945226 = sum of:
    0.041945226 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.035897274 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035897274 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
    Language
    e
  16. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.02 
    0.020972613 = product of:
  0.041945226 = sum of:
    0.041945226 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.035897274 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035897274 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
    Language
    e
  17. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.02 
    0.020972613 = product of:
  0.041945226 = sum of:
    0.041945226 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
      0.035897274 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035897274 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Language
    e
  18. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.02 
    0.018549055 = product of:
  0.03709811 = sum of:
    0.03709811 = sum of:
      0.008380292 = weight(_text_:e in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008380292 = score(doc=2881,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.11002572 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.028717818 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028717818 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45
    Language
    e
  19. Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013) 0.02 
    0.018233486 = sum of:
  0.015209509 = product of:
    0.060838036 = sum of:
      0.060838036 = weight(_text_:authors in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060838036 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24157293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
  0.0030239774 = product of:
    0.006047955 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, 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.
    Language
    e
  20. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.02 
    0.016778091 = product of:
  0.033556182 = sum of:
    0.033556182 = sum of:
      0.0048383637 = weight(_text_:e in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0048383637 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.063523374 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.028717818 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028717818 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18556301 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = 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)
    Language
    e
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 105
  • d 6
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 97
  • el 13
  • m 6
  • b 2
  • s 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications