Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.08 
    0.076048724 = product of:
  0.19012181 = sum of:
    0.13257387 = weight(_text_:objects in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13257387 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.05754794 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05754794 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  2. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.06 
    0.06466233 = product of:
  0.16165581 = sum of:
    0.08492521 = weight(_text_:21 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08492521 = score(doc=2882,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.3872412 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
    0.076730594 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076730594 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 9:55:29
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Pages
    S.15-22
  3. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.06 
    0.05657953 = product of:
  0.14144883 = sum of:
    0.074309565 = weight(_text_:21 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074309565 = score(doc=2889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.33883607 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.06713927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06713927 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
  4. Huang, H.; Jörgensen, C.: Characterizing user tagging and Co-occurring metadata in general and specialized metadata collections (2013) 0.05 
    0.054123055 = product of:
  0.27061528 = sum of:
    0.27061528 = weight(_text_:objects in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27061528 = score(doc=1046,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.7192166 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This study aims to identify the categorical characteristics and usage patterns of the most popular image tags in Flickr. The "metadata usage ratio" is introduced as a means of assessing the usage of a popular tag as metadata. We also compare how popular tags are used as image tags or metadata in the Flickr general collection and the Library of Congress's photostream (LCP), also in Flickr. The Flickr popular tags in the list overall are categorically stable, and the changes that do appear reflect Flickr users' evolving technology-driven cultural experience. The popular tags in Flickr had a high number of generic objects and specific locations-related tags and were rarely at the abstract level. Conversely, the popular tags in the LCP describe more in the specific objects and time categories. Flickr users copied the Library of Congress-supplied metadata that related to specific objects or events and standard bibliographic information (e.g., author, format, time references) as popular tags in the LCP. Those popular tags related to generic objects and events showed a high metadata usage ratio, while those related to specific locations and objects showed a low image metadata usage ratio. Popular tags in Flickr appeared less frequently as image metadata when describing specific objects than specific times and locations for historical images in Flickr LCP collections. Understanding how people contribute image tags or image metadata in Flickr helps determine what users need to describe and query images, and could help improve image browsing and retrieval.
  5. Seeman, D.: Naming names : the ethics of identification in digital library metadata (2012) 0.05 
    0.049407374 = product of:
  0.24703686 = sum of:
    0.24703686 = weight(_text_:objects in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24703686 = score(doc=416,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.656552 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    In many digital libraries, visual objects are published and metadata attached to allow for search and retrieval. For visual objects in which people appear, names are often added to the metadata so that digital library users can search for people appearing in these objects. Although this seems straightforward, there are ethical implications of adding names to metadata for visual objects. This paper explores the impact of this action and discusses relevant ethical issues it raises. It asserts that an individual's right to privacy and control over personal information must be weighed against the benefit of the object to society and the professional ethic to authentically represent a resource through its metadata. Context and an understanding of the major ethical issues will inform the practical decision of whether to keep objects online and add metadata to them, but items should generally be published unless there are clear ethical violations or a community relationship is in jeopardy.
  6. Fox, M.J.; Reece, A.: ¬The impossible decision : social tagging and Derrida's deconstructed hospitality (2013) 0.04 
    0.04374715 = product of:
  0.21873574 = sum of:
    0.21873574 = weight(_text_:objects in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21873574 = score(doc=1067,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization structures are dependent upon domain-analytical processes for determining ontological imperatives. Boundary objects-terms used in multiple domains but understood differently in each-are ontological clash points. Cognitive Work Analysis is an effective qualitative methodology for domain analysis of a group of people who work together. CWA was used recently to understand the ontology of a human resources firm. Boundary objects from the taxonomy that emerged from narrative analysis are presented here for individual analysis.
  7. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.03 
    0.03419545 = product of:
  0.08548862 = sum of:
    0.037531994 = weight(_text_:21 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037531994 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.04795662 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04795662 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  8. Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013) 0.03 
    0.031247962 = product of:
  0.15623981 = sum of:
    0.15623981 = weight(_text_:objects in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15623981 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  9. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03 
    0.027356356 = product of:
  0.06839089 = sum of:
    0.030025596 = weight(_text_:21 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030025596 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.13691044 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.038365297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038365297 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    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
  10. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.03 
    0.027356356 = product of:
  0.06839089 = sum of:
    0.030025596 = weight(_text_:21 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030025596 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.13691044 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.038365297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038365297 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45
    Footnote
    Vorbemerkung zu den Beiträgen der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
  11. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.03 
    0.026514774 = product of:
  0.13257387 = sum of:
    0.13257387 = weight(_text_:objects in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13257387 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.
  12. Ransom, N.; Rafferty, P.: Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval (2011) 0.02 
    0.022095649 = product of:
  0.11047824 = sum of:
    0.11047824 = weight(_text_:objects in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11047824 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.
  13. Hänger, C.: Good tags or bad tags? : Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung (2008) 0.02 
    0.020802345 = product of:
  0.10401172 = sum of:
    0.10401172 = weight(_text_:21 in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10401172 = score(doc=2886,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.4742717 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:13:21
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
  14. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.02 
    0.016985042 = product of:
  0.08492521 = sum of:
    0.08492521 = weight(_text_:21 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08492521 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.3872412 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    17. 9.2018 18:21:21
  15. Chan, L.M.: Social bookmarking and subject indexing (2011) 0.02 
    0.015012798 = product of:
  0.07506399 = sum of:
    0.07506399 = weight(_text_:21 in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07506399 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.3422761 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
  16. Aagaard, H.: Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library (2011) 0.02 
    0.015012798 = product of:
  0.07506399 = sum of:
    0.07506399 = weight(_text_:21 in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07506399 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.3422761 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
  17. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.014861913 = product of:
  0.074309565 = sum of:
    0.074309565 = weight(_text_:21 in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074309565 = score(doc=2884,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.33883607 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:47:42
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
  18. Held, C.; Cress, U.: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht (2008) 0.01 
    0.014861913 = product of:
  0.074309565 = sum of:
    0.074309565 = weight(_text_:21 in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074309565 = score(doc=2885,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.33883607 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:09:09
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
  19. Schiefner, M.: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre (2008) 0.01 
    0.014861913 = product of:
  0.074309565 = sum of:
    0.074309565 = weight(_text_:21 in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074309565 = score(doc=2887,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.33883607 = fieldWeight in 2887, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2887)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:12:58
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
  20. Blank, M.; Bopp, T.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? (2008) 0.01 
    0.014861913 = product of:
  0.074309565 = sum of:
    0.074309565 = weight(_text_:21 in 2888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074309565 = score(doc=2888,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.33883607 = fieldWeight in 2888, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2888)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:20:09
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 29
  • d 26

Types

  • a 49
  • m 3
  • b 2
  • el 2
  • s 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications