-
Chan, L.M.: Social bookmarking and subject indexing (2011)
0.08
0.07839601 = product of:
0.15679201 = sum of:
0.106154054 = weight(_text_:et in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.106154054 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.5183982 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
0.050637968 = product of:
0.101275936 = sum of:
0.101275936 = weight(_text_:al in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.101275936 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.5063471 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Aagaard, H.: Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library (2011)
0.08
0.07839601 = product of:
0.15679201 = sum of:
0.106154054 = weight(_text_:et in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.106154054 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.5183982 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
0.050637968 = product of:
0.101275936 = sum of:
0.101275936 = weight(_text_:al in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.101275936 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.5063471 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007)
0.06
0.06424952 = product of:
0.08566603 = sum of:
0.022949224 = weight(_text_:c in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022949224 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.020255188 = product of:
0.040510375 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?
-
Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008)
0.05
0.05331205 = product of:
0.1066241 = sum of:
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
0.06416247 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
0.023652097 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023652097 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = 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(2/4)
- Abstract
- Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
-
Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012)
0.04
0.039198004 = product of:
0.07839601 = sum of:
0.053077027 = weight(_text_:et in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053077027 = score(doc=432,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
0.025318984 = product of:
0.050637968 = sum of:
0.050637968 = weight(_text_:al in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050637968 = score(doc=432,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al
-
Trant, J.; Bearman, D.: Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement : exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections (2005)
0.03
0.031358406 = product of:
0.06271681 = sum of:
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
0.020255188 = product of:
0.040510375 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- From their earliest encounters with the Web, museums have seen an opportunity to move beyond uni-directional communication into an environment that engages their users and reflects a multiplicity of perspectives. Shedding the "Unassailable Voice" (Walsh 1997) in favor of many "Points of View" (Sledge 1995) has challenged traditional museum approaches to the creation and delivery of content. Novel approaches are required in order to develop and sustain user engagement (Durbin 2004). New models of exhibit creation that democratize the curatorial functions of object selection and interpretation offer one way of opening up the museum (Coldicutt and Streten 2005). Another is to use the museum as a forum and focus for community story-telling (Howard, Pratty et al. 2005). Unfortunately, museum collections remain relatively inaccessible even when 'made available' through searchable on-line databases. Museum documentation seldom satisfies the on-line access needs of the broad public, both because it is written using professional terminology and because it may not address what is important to - or remembered by - the museum visitor. For example, an exhibition now on-line at The Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledges "Coco" Chanel only in the brief, textual introduction (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). All of the images of her delightful fashion designs are attributed to "Gabrielle Chanel" (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). Interfaces that organize collections along axes of time or place - such of that of the Timeline of Art History (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005e) - often fail to match users' world-views, despite the care that went into their structuring or their significant pedagogical utility. Critically, as professionals working with art museums we realize that when cataloguers and curators describe works of art, they usually do not include the "subject" of the image itself. Simply put, we rarely answer the question "What is it a picture of?" Unfortunately, visitors will often remember a work based on its visual characteristics, only to find that Web-based searches for any of the things they recall do not produce results.
-
Yoon, J.W.: Towards a user-oriented thesaurus for non-domain-specific image collections (2009)
0.03
0.031358406 = product of:
0.06271681 = sum of:
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
0.020255188 = product of:
0.040510375 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study explored how user-supplied tags can be applied to designing a thesaurus that reflects the unique features of image documents. Tags from the popular image-sharing Web site Flickr were examined in terms of two central components of a thesaurus-selected concepts and their semantic relations-as well as the features of image documents. Shatford's facet category and Rosch et al.'s basic-level theory were adopted for examining concepts to be included in a thesaurus. The results suggested that the best approach to Color and Generic category descriptors is to focus on basic-level terms and to include frequently used superordinate- and subordinate-level terms. In the Abstract category, it was difficult to specify a set of abstract terms that can be used consistently and dominantly, so it was suggested to enhance browsability using hierarchical and associative relations. Study results also indicate a need for greater inclusion of Specific category terms, which were shown to be an important tool in establishing related tags. Regarding semantic relations, the study indicated that in the identification of related terms, it is important that descriptors not be limited only to the category in which a main entry belongs but broadened to include terms from other categories as well. Although future studies are needed to ensure the effectiveness of this user-oriented approach, this study yielded promising results, demonstrating that user-supplied tags can be a helpful tool in selecting concepts to be included in a thesaurus and in identifying semantic relations among the selected concepts. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide a practical guideline for designing a thesaurus for image documents that takes into account both the unique features of these documents and the unique information-seeking behaviors of general users.
-
Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011)
0.03
0.026081456 = product of:
0.05216291 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
0.017739072 = product of:
0.035478145 = sum of:
0.035478145 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035478145 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019)
0.02
0.021734547 = product of:
0.043469094 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
0.014782562 = product of:
0.029565124 = sum of:
0.029565124 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029565124 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Huang, S.-L.; Lin, S.-C.; Chan, Y.-C.: Investigating effectiveness and user acceptance of semantic social tagging for knowledge sharing (2012)
0.01
0.012170665 = product of:
0.04868266 = sum of:
0.04868266 = weight(_text_:c in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04868266 = score(doc=2732,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.32338172 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Hänger, C.: Good tags or bad tags? : Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung (2008)
0.01
0.011474612 = product of:
0.04589845 = sum of:
0.04589845 = weight(_text_:c in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04589845 = score(doc=2886,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Hotho, A.; Jäschke, R.; Benz, D.; Grahl, M.; Krause, B.; Schmitz, C.; Stumme, G.: Social Bookmarking am Beispiel BibSonomy (2009)
0.01
0.011474612 = product of:
0.04589845 = sum of:
0.04589845 = weight(_text_:c in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04589845 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013)
0.01
0.010142221 = product of:
0.040568884 = sum of:
0.040568884 = weight(_text_:c in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040568884 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
-
Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006)
0.01
0.010040285 = product of:
0.04016114 = sum of:
0.04016114 = weight(_text_:c in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04016114 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
-
Held, C.; Cress, U.: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht (2008)
0.01
0.010040285 = product of:
0.04016114 = sum of:
0.04016114 = weight(_text_:c in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04016114 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012)
0.01
0.010040285 = product of:
0.04016114 = sum of:
0.04016114 = weight(_text_:c in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04016114 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Web-2.0-Dienste als Ergänzung zu algorithmischen Suchmaschinen (2008)
0.01
0.00860596 = product of:
0.03442384 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=4323,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Editor
- Lewandowski, D. u. C. Maaß
-
Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005)
0.01
0.0071716327 = product of:
0.02868653 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Simon, J.: Interdisciplinary knowledge creation : using wikis in science (2006)
0.01
0.0071716327 = product of:
0.02868653 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=2516,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
-
Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009)
0.01
0.0071716327 = product of:
0.02868653 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=2813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
