Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.04
    0.04451194 = product of:
      0.13353582 = sum of:
        0.13353582 = sum of:
          0.09506226 = weight(_text_:group in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.09506226 = score(doc=3601,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047327764 = queryNorm
              0.43394202 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
          0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03847355 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  2. Bar-Ilan, J.; Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Miller, Y.; Shoham, S.: ¬The effects of background information and social interaction on image tagging (2010) 0.02
    0.016170422 = product of:
      0.048511263 = sum of:
        0.048511263 = product of:
          0.097022526 = sum of:
            0.097022526 = weight(_text_:group in 3453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.097022526 = score(doc=3453,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.44289026 = fieldWeight in 3453, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3453)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    In this article, we describe the results of an experiment designed to understand the effects of background information and social interaction on image tagging. The participants in the experiment were asked to tag 12 preselected images of Jewish cultural heritage. The users were partitioned into three groups: the first group saw only the images with no additional information whatsoever, the second group saw the images plus a short, descriptive title, and the third group saw the images, the titles, and the URL of the page in which the image appeared. In the first stage of the experiment, each user tagged the images without seeing the tags provided by the other users. In the second stage, the users saw the tags assigned by others and were encouraged to interact. Results show that after the social interaction phase, the tag sets converged and the popular tags became even more popular. Although in all cases the total number of assigned tags increased after the social interaction phase, the number of distinct tags decreased in most cases. When viewing the image only, in some cases the users were not able to correctly identify what they saw in some of the pictures, but they overcame the initial difficulties after interaction. We conclude from this experiment that social interaction may lead to convergence in tagging and that the wisdom of the crowds helps overcome the difficulties due to the lack of information.
  3. Fox, M.J.; Reece, A.: ¬The impossible decision : social tagging and Derrida's deconstructed hospitality (2013) 0.01
    0.013070395 = product of:
      0.039211184 = sum of:
        0.039211184 = product of:
          0.07842237 = sum of:
            0.07842237 = weight(_text_:group in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07842237 = score(doc=1067,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.35798392 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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.
  4. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Flack, M.: Social bookmarking tools (II) : a case study - Connotea (2005) 0.01
    0.009335997 = product of:
      0.028007988 = sum of:
        0.028007988 = product of:
          0.056015976 = sum of:
            0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056015976 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.
  5. Kipp, M.E.I.; Campbell, D.G.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2010) 0.01
    0.009335997 = product of:
      0.028007988 = sum of:
        0.028007988 = product of:
          0.056015976 = sum of:
            0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056015976 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval was examined in this pilot study. Many tags are subject related and could work well as index terms or entry vocabulary; however, folksonomies also include relationships that are traditionally not included in controlled vocabularies including affective or time and task related tags and the user name of the tagger. Participants searched a social bookmarking tool, specialising in academic articles (CiteULike), and an online journal database (Pubmed) for articles relevant to a given information request. Screen capture software was used to collect participant actions and a semi-structured interview asked them to describe their search process. Preliminary results showed that participants did use tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, participants also used controlled vocabularies in the journal database to locate useful search terms and links to related articles supplied by Pubmed. Additionally, participants reported using user names of taggers and group names to help select resources by relevance. The inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants. This study suggests that while users value social and subjective factors when searching, they also find utility in objective factors such as subject headings. Most importantly, users are interested in the ability of systems to connect them with related articles whether via subject access or other means.
  6. Yoon, K.: Conceptual syntagmatic associations in user tagging (2012) 0.01
    0.009335997 = product of:
      0.028007988 = sum of:
        0.028007988 = product of:
          0.056015976 = sum of:
            0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056015976 = score(doc=240,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This study aimed to integrate the linguistic theory of syntagmatic relations and the concept of topic and comment into an empirical analysis of user tagging. User tags on documents in a social bookmarking site reflect a user's views of an information object, which can augment the content description and provide more effective representation of information. The study presents a study of tag analysis to uncover semantic relations among tag terms implicit in user tagging. The objective was to identify the syntagmatic semantic cores of topic and comment in user tags evidenced by the meaning attached to the information object by users. The study focused on syntagmatic relations, which were based on the way in which terms were used within the information content among users. Analysis of descriptive tag terms found three primary categories of concepts: content-topic, content-comment, and context of use. The relations among terms within a group and between the content-topic and content-comment groups were determined by inferring user meaning from the user notes and from the context of the source text. Intergroup relations showed syntagmatic associations between the topic and comment, whereas intragroup relations were more general but were limited in the document context. The findings are discussed with regard to the semantics of concepts and relations in user tagging. An implication of syntagmatic relations to information search suggests that concepts can be combined by a specific association in the context of the actual use of terms.
  7. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01
    0.008549679 = product of:
      0.025649035 = sum of:
        0.025649035 = product of:
          0.05129807 = sum of:
            0.05129807 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05129807 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Pages
    S.15-22
  8. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01
    0.00755692 = product of:
      0.022670759 = sum of:
        0.022670759 = product of:
          0.045341518 = sum of:
            0.045341518 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.045341518 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  9. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01
    0.0074809687 = product of:
      0.022442905 = sum of:
        0.022442905 = product of:
          0.04488581 = sum of:
            0.04488581 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04488581 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  10. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005) 0.01
    0.0065351976 = product of:
      0.019605592 = sum of:
        0.019605592 = product of:
          0.039211184 = sum of:
            0.039211184 = weight(_text_:group in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039211184 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.17899196 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    A number of such utilities are presented here, together with an emergent new class of tools that caters more to the academic communities and that stores not only user-supplied tags, but also structured citation metadata terms wherever it is possible to glean this information from service providers. This provision of rich, structured metadata means that the user is provided with an accurate third-party identification of a document, which could be used to retrieve that document, but is also free to search on user-supplied terms so that documents of interest (or rather, references to documents) can be made discoverable and aggregated with other similar descriptions either recorded by the user or by other users. Matt Biddulph in an XML.com article last year, in which he reviews one of the better known social bookmarking tools, del.icio.us, declares that the "del.icio.us-space has three major axes: users, tags, and URLs". We fully support that assessment but choose to present this deconstruction in a reverse order. This paper thus first recaps a brief history of bookmarks, then discusses the current interest in tagging, moves on to look at certain social issues, and finally considers some of the feature sets offered by the new bookmarking tools. A general review of a number of common social bookmarking tools is presented in the annex. A companion paper describes a case study in more detail: the tool that Nature Publishing Group has made available to the scientific community as an experimental entrée into this field - Connotea; our reasons for endeavouring to provide such a utility; and experiences gained and lessons learned.
  11. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01
    0.0064122584 = product of:
      0.019236775 = sum of:
        0.019236775 = product of:
          0.03847355 = sum of:
            0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03847355 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  12. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.01
    0.0064122584 = product of:
      0.019236775 = sum of:
        0.019236775 = product of:
          0.03847355 = sum of:
            0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03847355 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01
    0.0064122584 = product of:
      0.019236775 = sum of:
        0.019236775 = product of:
          0.03847355 = sum of:
            0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03847355 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  14. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01
    0.005343549 = product of:
      0.016030647 = sum of:
        0.016030647 = product of:
          0.032061294 = sum of:
            0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032061294 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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".
  15. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.01
    0.005343549 = product of:
      0.016030647 = sum of:
        0.016030647 = product of:
          0.032061294 = sum of:
            0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032061294 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  16. 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) 0.01
    0.005343549 = product of:
      0.016030647 = sum of:
        0.016030647 = product of:
          0.032061294 = sum of:
            0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032061294 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  17. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01
    0.005343549 = product of:
      0.016030647 = sum of:
        0.016030647 = product of:
          0.032061294 = sum of:
            0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032061294 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  18. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.01
    0.005343549 = product of:
      0.016030647 = sum of:
        0.016030647 = product of:
          0.032061294 = sum of:
            0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032061294 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  19. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01
    0.005343549 = product of:
      0.016030647 = sum of:
        0.016030647 = product of:
          0.032061294 = sum of:
            0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032061294 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.00
    0.0042748395 = product of:
      0.012824518 = sum of:
        0.012824518 = product of:
          0.025649035 = sum of:
            0.025649035 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025649035 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047327764 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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