Search (109 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.10 
    0.10422688 = product of:
  0.18239704 = sum of:
    0.025663862 = weight(_text_:of in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025663862 = score(doc=3602,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.09367418 = weight(_text_:congress in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09367418 = score(doc=3602,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.4472166 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.017847266 = product of:
      0.035694532 = sum of:
        0.035694532 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035694532 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = 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)
  0.5714286 = coord(4/7)
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Choi, N.; Joo, S.: Booklovers' world : an examination of factors affecting continued usage of social cataloging sites (2016) 0.06 
    0.061429396 = product of:
  0.14333525 = sum of:
    0.021386553 = weight(_text_:of in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021386553 = score(doc=3224,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
    0.099682465 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099682465 = score(doc=3224,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.57602817 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
    0.022266233 = product of:
      0.044532467 = sum of:
        0.044532467 = weight(_text_:service in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044532467 = score(doc=3224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.23669997 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    Little is known about what factors influence users' continued use of social cataloging sites. This study therefore examines the impacts of key factors from theories of information systems (IS) success and sense of community (SOC) on users' continuance intention in the social cataloging context. Data collected from an online survey of 323 social cataloging users provide empirical support for the research model. The findings indicate that both information quality (IQ) and system quality (SQ) are significant predictors of satisfaction and SOC, which in turn lead to users' intentions to continue using these sites. In addition, SOC was found to affect continuance intention not only directly, but also indirectly through satisfaction. Theoretically, this study draws attention to a largely unexplored but essential area of research in the social cataloging literature and provides a fundamental basis to understand the determinants of continued social cataloging usage. From a managerial perspective, the findings suggest that social cataloging service providers should constantly focus their efforts on the quality control of their contents and system, and the enhancement of SOC among their users.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3022-3035
  3. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.06 
    0.05526712 = product of:
  0.12895662 = sum of:
    0.01743516 = weight(_text_:of in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01743516 = score(doc=3601,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.09367418 = weight(_text_:congress in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09367418 = score(doc=3601,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.4472166 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.017847266 = product of:
      0.035694532 = sum of:
        0.035694532 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035694532 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = 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)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    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
  4. Oudenaar, H.; Bullard, J.: NOT A BOOK : goodreads and the risks of social cataloging with insufficient direction (2024) 0.04 
    0.039510544 = product of:
  0.1382869 = sum of:
    0.02034102 = weight(_text_:of in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034102 = score(doc=1156,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
    0.11794589 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11794589 = score(doc=1156,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.68156576 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Social cataloging websites, such as Goodreads, LibraryThing, and StoryGraph are widely popular with individuals who want to track their reading and read reviews. Goodreads is one of the most popular sites with 90 million registered users as of 2019. This paper studies a Goodreads cataloging rule, NOT A BOOK (NAB), through which users designate items as invalid to the site's scope while preserving some of their metadata. By reviewing NAB, we identify thirteen types of invalid items. We go on to discuss how these item types unevenly reflect the rule itself and the emergence of a "non-book" sense through social cataloging.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.2, p.203-227
  5. Lin, N.; Li, D.; Ding, Y.; He, B.; Qin, Z.; Tang, J.; Li, J.; Dong, T.: ¬The dynamic features of Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube (2012) 0.04 
    0.035670813 = product of:
  0.124847844 = sum of:
    0.022193875 = weight(_text_:of in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022193875 = score(doc=4970,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
    0.102653965 = weight(_text_:distribution in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102653965 = score(doc=4970,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24019864 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42737114 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This article investigates the dynamic features of social tagging vocabularies in Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube from 2003 to 2008. Three algorithms are designed to study the macro- and micro-tag growth as well as the dynamics of taggers' activities, respectively. Moreover, we propose a Tagger Tag Resource Latent Dirichlet Allocation (TTR-LDA) model to explore the evolution of topics emerging from those social vocabularies. Our results show that (a) at the macro level, tag growth in all the three tagging systems obeys power law distribution with exponents lower than 1; at the micro level, the tag growth of popular resources in all three tagging systems follows a similar power law distribution; (b) the exponents of tag growth vary in different evolving stages of resources; (c) the growth of number of taggers associated with different popular resources presents a feature of convergence over time; (d) the active level of taggers has a positive correlation with the macro-tag growth of different tagging systems; and (e) some topics evolve into several subtopics over time while others experience relatively stable stages in which their contents do not change much, and certain groups of taggers continue their interests in them.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.139-162
  6. Munk, T.B.; Moerk, K.: Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies : an empirical study (2007) 0.04 
    0.035440147 = product of:
  0.124040514 = sum of:
    0.021386553 = weight(_text_:of in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021386553 = score(doc=1091,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    0.102653965 = weight(_text_:distribution in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102653965 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24019864 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42737114 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The subject of this article is folksonomies on the Internet. One of the largest folksonomies on the Internet in terms of number of users and tagged websites is the computer program del.icio.us, where more than 100,000 people have tagged the websites that they and others find using their own keywords. How this is done in practice and the patterns to be found are the focus of this article. The empirical basis is the collection of 76,601 different keywords with a total frequency of 178,215 from 500 randomly chosen taggers on del.icio.us at the end of 2005. The keywords collected were then analyzed quantitatively statistically by uncovering their frequency and percentage distribution and through a statistical correspondence analysis in order to uncover possible patterns in the users' tags. Subsequently, a qualitative textual analysis of the tags was made in order to find out by analysis which tagging strategies are represented in the data material. This led to four conclusions. 1) the distribution of keywords follows classic power law; 2) distinct tagging communities are identifiable; 3) the most frequently used tags are situated on a general-specific axis; and 4) nine distinct tagging strategies are observed. These four conclusions are put into perspective collectively in respect of a number of more general and theoretical considerations concerning folksonomies and the classification systems of the future.
  7. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.03 
    0.03174553 = product of:
  0.111109346 = sum of:
    0.01743516 = weight(_text_:of in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01743516 = score(doc=2492,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
    0.09367418 = weight(_text_:congress in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09367418 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.4472166 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.
  8. Stvilia, B.; Jörgensen, C.: Member activities and quality of tags in a collection of historical photographs in Flickr (2010) 0.03 
    0.029690543 = product of:
  0.1039169 = sum of:
    0.025855081 = weight(_text_:of in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025855081 = score(doc=4117,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
    0.07806182 = weight(_text_:congress in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07806182 = score(doc=4117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3726805 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2477-2489
  9. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03 
    0.028925875 = product of:
  0.10124056 = sum of:
    0.015738213 = weight(_text_:of in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015738213 = score(doc=2666,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.08550235 = sum of:
      0.061705995 = weight(_text_:service in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061705995 = score(doc=2666,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043909185 = queryNorm
          0.3279811 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.023796353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023796353 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043909185 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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. Yi, K.: ¬A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags (2010) 0.03 
    0.028174104 = product of:
  0.09860936 = sum of:
    0.020547535 = weight(_text_:of in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020547535 = score(doc=3707,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
    0.07806182 = weight(_text_:congress in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07806182 = score(doc=3707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3726805 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Social tagging or collaborative tagging has become a new trend in the organization, management, and discovery of digital information. The rapid growth of shared information mostly controlled by social tags poses a new challenge for social tag-based information organization and retrieval. A plausible approach for this challenge is linking social tags to a controlled vocabulary. As an introductory step for this approach, this study investigates ways of predicting relevant subject headings for resources from social tags assigned to the resources. The prediction of subject headings was measured by five different similarity measures: tf-idf, cosine-based similarity (CoS), Jaccard similarity (or Jaccard coefficient; JS), Mutual information (MI), and information radius (IRad). Their results were compared to those by professionals. The results show that a CoS measure based on top five social tags was most effective. Inclusions of more social tags only aggravate the performance. The performance of JS is comparable to the performance of CoS while tf-idf is comparable with up to 70% less than the best performance. MI and IRad have inferior performance compared to the other methods. This study demonstrates the application of the similarity measuring techniques to the prediction of correct Library of Congress subject headings.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1658-1672
  11. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.03 
    0.026801446 = product of:
  0.09380506 = sum of:
    0.027567413 = weight(_text_:of in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027567413 = score(doc=703,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
    0.06623765 = weight(_text_:congress in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06623765 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Although user tagging of library resources shows substantial promise as a means of improving the quality of users' access to those resources, several important questions about the level and nature of the warrant for basing retrieval tools on user tagging are yet to receive full consideration by library practitioners and researchers. Among these is the simple evaluative question: What, specifically, are the factors that determine whether or not user-tagging services will be successful? If success is to be defined in terms of the effectiveness with which systems perform the particular functions expected of them (rather than simply in terms of popularity), an understanding is needed both of the multifunctional nature of tagging tools, and of the complex nature of users' mental models of that multifunctionality. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for the evaluation of systems that integrate user tagging with more traditional methods of library resource description.
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 157 - Classification and Indexing
  12. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.02 
    0.023618974 = product of:
  0.082666405 = sum of:
    0.008388496 = weight(_text_:of in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008388496 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.12216854 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.07427791 = sum of:
      0.044532467 = weight(_text_:service in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044532467 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043909185 = queryNorm
          0.23669997 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.029745443 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029745443 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043909185 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  13. Spiteri, L.F.: Incorporating facets into social tagging applications : an analysis of current trends (2010) 0.02 
    0.022188447 = product of:
  0.07765956 = sum of:
    0.02491256 = weight(_text_:of in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02491256 = score(doc=3561,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 3561, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3561)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=3561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 3561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3561)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    An increasingly difficult challenge in social tagging applications is negotiating the number of existing tags. This article examines the use of facets to facilitate the efficient organization and browsing of tags into manageable and distinct categories. Current and proposed methodologies for the application of facets in social tagging applications are evaluated. Results of this analysis indicate that these methodologies provide insufficient guidelines for the choice, evaluation, and maintenance of the facets. Suggestions are made to guide the design of a more rigorous methodology for the application of facets to social tagging applications.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.1, S.94-109
  14. Golub, K.; Lykke, M.; Tudhope, D.: Enhancing social tagging with automated keywords from the Dewey Decimal Classification (2014) 0.02 
    0.022111978 = product of:
  0.07739192 = sum of:
    0.022193875 = weight(_text_:of in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022193875 = score(doc=2918,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.055198044 = weight(_text_:congress in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055198044 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of applying the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as an established knowledge organization system (KOS) for enhancing social tagging, with the ultimate purpose of improving subject indexing and information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Over 11.000 Intute metadata records in politics were used. Totally, 28 politics students were each given four tasks, in which a total of 60 resources were tagged in two different configurations, one with uncontrolled social tags only and another with uncontrolled social tags as well as suggestions from a controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary was DDC comprising also mappings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Findings - The results demonstrate the importance of controlled vocabulary suggestions for indexing and retrieval: to help produce ideas of which tags to use, to make it easier to find focus for the tagging, to ensure consistency and to increase the number of access points in retrieval. The value and usefulness of the suggestions proved to be dependent on the quality of the suggestions, both as to conceptual relevance to the user and as to appropriateness of the terminology. Originality/value - No research has investigated the enhancement of social tagging with suggestions from the DDC, an established KOS, in a user trial, comparing social tagging only and social tagging enhanced with the suggestions. This paper is a final reflection on all aspects of the study.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.5, S.801-828
  15. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.02 
    0.021479744 = product of:
  0.0751791 = sum of:
    0.017109241 = weight(_text_:of in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017109241 = score(doc=533,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.058069855 = weight(_text_:distribution in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058069855 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24019864 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.24175763 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
    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)?
  16. Rafferty, P.; Murphy, H.: Is there nothing outside the tags? : towards a poststructuralist analysis of social tagging (2015) 0.02 
    0.021130083 = product of:
  0.07395529 = sum of:
    0.018757246 = weight(_text_:of in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018757246 = score(doc=1792,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
    0.055198044 = weight(_text_:congress in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055198044 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of the research is to explore relationships between social tagging and key poststructuralist principles; to devise and construct an analytical framework through which key poststructuralist principles are converted into workable research questions and applied to analyse Librarything tags, and to assess the validity of performing such an analysis. The research hypothesis is that tagging represents an imperfect analogy for the poststructuralist project Design/methodology/approach Tags from LibraryThing and from a library OPAC were compared and constrasted with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and publishers' descriptions. Research questions derived from poststructuralism, asked whether tags destabilise meaning, whether and how far the death of the author is expressed in tags, and whether tags deconstruct LCSH. Findings Tags can temporarily destabilise meaning by obfuscating the structure of a word. Meaning is destabilised, perhaps only momentarily, and then it is recreated; it might resemble the original meaning, or it may not, however any attempt to make tags useful or functional necessarily imposes some form of structure. The analysis indicates that in tagging, the author, if not dead, is ignored. Authoritative interpretations are not pervasively mimicked in the tags. In relation to LCSH, tagging decentres the dominant view, but neither exposes nor judges it. Nor does tagging achieve the final stage of the deconstructive process, showing the dominant view to be a constructed reality. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to have attempted a critical theoretical approach to social tagging. It offers a novel methodological approach to undertaking analysis based on poststructuralist theory.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 71(2015) no.3, S.477-502
  17. Kipp, M.E.; Beak, J.; Choi, I.: Motivations and intentions of flickr users in enriching flick records for Library of Congress photos (2017) 0.02 
    0.021130083 = product of:
  0.07395529 = sum of:
    0.018757246 = weight(_text_:of in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018757246 = score(doc=3828,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
    0.055198044 = weight(_text_:congress in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055198044 = score(doc=3828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2364-2379
  18. Huang, H.; Jörgensen, C.: Characterizing user tagging and Co-occurring metadata in general and specialized metadata collections (2013) 0.02 
    0.02025471 = product of:
  0.070891485 = sum of:
    0.01569344 = weight(_text_:of in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01569344 = score(doc=1046,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
    0.055198044 = weight(_text_:congress in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055198044 = score(doc=1046,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.9, S.1878-1889
  19. Abreu, A.: "Every bit informs another" : framework analysis for descriptive practice and linked information (2008) 0.02 
    0.01918008 = product of:
  0.067130275 = sum of:
    0.014383274 = weight(_text_:of in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014383274 = score(doc=2249,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=2249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Content
    The independent traditions of description in bibliographic and archival environments are rich and continually evolving. Recognizing this, how can Libraries, Archives and Museums seek convergence in describing materials on the web? In order to seek better description for materials and cross-institutional alignment, we can first reconceptualize where description may fit into work practices. I examine subject cataloging and archival practice alongside social tagging as a means of drawing conclusions for possible new paths in integration.
    Source
    Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis
  20. Bundza, M.: ¬The choice is yours! : researchers assign subject metadata to their own materials in institutional repositories (2014) 0.02 
    0.01918008 = product of:
  0.067130275 = sum of:
    0.014383274 = weight(_text_:of in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014383274 = score(doc=1968,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The Digital Commons platform for institutional repositories provides a three-tiered taxonomy of academic disciplines for each item submitted to the repository. Since faculty and departmental administrators across campuses are encouraged to submit materials to the institutional repository themselves, they must also assign disciplines or subject categories for their own work. The expandable drop-down menu of about 1,000 categories is easy to use, and facilitates the growth of the institutional repository and access to the materials through the Internet.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.110-118

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 101
  • d 7
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 97
  • el 13
  • m 4
  • b 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications