Search (109 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.04
    0.043440577 = product of:
      0.08688115 = sum of:
        0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066389285 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
        0.02049187 = product of:
          0.04098374 = sum of:
            0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04098374 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    Social-Tagging-Systeme, die sich für das Wissensmanagement rapide wachsender Informationsmengen zunehmend durchsetzen, sind ein ambivalentes Phänomen. Sie bieten Kundennähe und entfalten ein beachtliches kreatives Potenzial. Sie erzeugen aber ebenso große Mengen völlig unkontrollierter Meta-Informationen. Aus Sicht gepflegter Vokabularien, wie sie sich etwa in Thesauri finden, handelt es sich bei völlig frei vergebenen Nutzerschlagwörtern (den "Tags") deshalb um "chaotische" Sacherschließung. Andererseits ist auch die These einer "Schwarmintelligenz", die in diesem Chaos wertvolles Wissen als Gemeinschaftsprodukt erzeugt, nicht von der Hand zu weisen. Die Frage ist also: Wie lassen sich aus Tagging-Daten Meta-Informationen generieren, die nach Qualität und Ordnung wissenschaftlichen Standards entsprechen - nicht zuletzt zur Optimierung eines kontrollierten Vokabulars? Der Beitrag stellt ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten vor.
    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
  2. Tennis, J.T.; Jacob, E.K.: Toward a theory of structure in information organization frameworks (2008) 0.04
    0.04236816 = product of:
      0.08473632 = sum of:
        0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024031956 = score(doc=2251,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)
        0.060704365 = product of:
          0.12140873 = sum of:
            0.12140873 = weight(_text_:organization in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.12140873 = score(doc=2251,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.675432 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Content
    This paper outlines a formal and systematic approach to explication of the role of structure in information organization. It presents a preliminary set of constructs that are useful for understanding the similarities and differences that obtain across information organization systems. This work seeks to provide necessary groundwork for development of a theory of structure that can serve as a lens through which to observe patterns across systems of information organization.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11
    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
  3. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.04
    0.040847298 = product of:
      0.081694596 = sum of:
        0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01213797 = score(doc=515,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
        0.06955662 = sum of:
          0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.035403505 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
          0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03415312 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = 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(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    A new collaborative approach in information organization and sharing has recently arisen, known as collaborative tagging or social indexing. A key element of collaborative tagging is the concept of collective intelligence (CI), which is a shared intelligence among all participants. This research investigates the phenomenon of social tagging in the context of CI with the aim to serve as a stepping-stone towards the mining of truly valuable social tags for web resources. This study focuses on assessing and evaluating the degree of CI embedded in social tagging over time in terms of two-parameter values, number of participants, and top frequency ranking window. Five different metrics were adopted and utilized for assessing the similarity between ranking lists: overlapList, overlapRank, Footrule, Fagin's measure, and the Inverse Rank measure. The result of this study demonstrates that a substantial degree of CI is most likely to be achieved when somewhere between the first 200 and 400 people have participated in tagging, and that a target degree of CI can be projected by controlling the two factors along with the selection of a similarity metric. The study also tests some experimental conditions for detecting social tags with high CI degree. The results of this study can be applicable to the study of filtering social tags based on CI; filtered social tags may be utilized for the metadata creation of tagged resources and possibly for the retrieval of tagged resources.
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2488-2502
  4. Abbas, J.: In the margins : reflections on scribbles (2007) 0.03
    0.033715617 = product of:
      0.067431234 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
        0.055415254 = product of:
          0.11083051 = sum of:
            0.11083051 = weight(_text_:organization in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11083051 = score(doc=659,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.6165823 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Marginalia or 'scribbling in the margins' is a means for readers to add a more in-depth level of granularity and subject representation to digital documents such as those present in social sharing environments like Flickr and del.icio.us. Social classification and social sharing sites development of user-defined descriptors or tags is discussed in the context of knowledge organization. With this position paper I present a rationale for the use of the resulting folksonomies and tag clouds being developed in these social sharing communities as a rich source of information about our users and their natural organization processes. The knowledge organization community needs to critically examine our understandings of these emerging classificatory schema and determine how best to adapt, augment, revitalize existing knowledge organization structures.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 34(2007) no.2, S.72-77
  5. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.03
    0.033715617 = product of:
      0.067431234 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
        0.055415254 = product of:
          0.11083051 = sum of:
            0.11083051 = weight(_text_:organization in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11083051 = score(doc=4647,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.6165823 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.6, S.500-516
  6. Spiteri, L.F.: Extending the scope of library discovery systems via hashtags (2018) 0.03
    0.03139454 = product of:
      0.06278908 = sum of:
        0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013732546 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
        0.049056537 = product of:
          0.098113075 = sum of:
            0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.098113075 = score(doc=4798,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  7. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.03
    0.029958814 = product of:
      0.05991763 = sum of:
        0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01699316 = score(doc=828,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
        0.04292447 = product of:
          0.08584894 = sum of:
            0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08584894 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    There are close to a billion websites on the Internet with approximately 400 million users worldwide [www.internetworldstats.com]. People go to websites for a wide variety of different information tasks, from finding a restaurant to serious research. Many of the difficulties with searching the Web, as it is structured currently, can be attributed to increases to scale. The content of the Web is now so large that we only have a rough estimate of the number of sites and the range of information is extremely diverse, from blogs and photos to research articles and news videos.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
  8. Aparecida Moura, M.; Assis, J.: Social networks, indexing languages and organization of knowledge : a semiotic approach 0.03
    0.028524885 = product of:
      0.05704977 = sum of:
        0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 3544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014565565 = score(doc=3544,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3544, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3544)
        0.042484205 = product of:
          0.08496841 = sum of:
            0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 3544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08496841 = score(doc=3544,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 3544, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3544)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This study will present a theoretical discussion about the semiotics categories and its application in the information organization. An experiment about the performance of the Gemet and Eurovoc thesauri with the subject "sustainable development" comparing with the folksonomies and distributed classification systems available on the online repositories of individual or collective information is presented. The new configuration of warrant (literary, structural and of usage) in the process of constructing indexing languages in digital environments will also be discussed. It suggested in the methodological terms that the new theoretical and informational mediations have to be incorporated in the construction process of indexing languages.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.12
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M
  9. Shiri, A.: Trend analysis in social tagging : an LIS perspective (2007) 0.03
    0.026893519 = product of:
      0.053787038 = sum of:
        0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013732546 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
        0.040054493 = product of:
          0.080108985 = sum of:
            0.080108985 = weight(_text_:organization in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.080108985 = score(doc=529,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The aim of the present study was to identify and categorize social tagging trends and developments as revealed by the analysis of library and information science scholarly and professional literature.
    Content
    Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".
  10. Corrado, E.; Moulaison, H.L.: Social tagging and communities of practice : two case studies (2008) 0.03
    0.025678985 = product of:
      0.05135797 = sum of:
        0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014565565 = score(doc=2271,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
        0.036792405 = product of:
          0.07358481 = sum of:
            0.07358481 = weight(_text_:organization in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07358481 = score(doc=2271,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Content
    In investigating the use of social tagging for knowledge organization and sharing, this paper reports on two case studies. Each study examines how two disparate communities of practices utilize social tagging to disseminate information to other community members in the online environment. Through the use of these tags, community members may retrieve and view relevant Web sites and online videos. The first study looks at tagging within the Code4Lib community of practice. The second study examines the use of tagging on video sharing sites used by a community of French teenagers. Uses of social tagging to share information within these communities are analyzed and discussed, and recommendations for future study are provided.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11
    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
  11. Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006) 0.02
    0.023531828 = product of:
      0.047063656 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
        0.03504768 = product of:
          0.07009536 = sum of:
            0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07009536 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of 'representative authority'.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10
    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
  12. Abreu, A.: "Every bit informs another" : framework analysis for descriptive practice and linked information (2008) 0.02
    0.023531828 = product of:
      0.047063656 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=2249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
        0.03504768 = product of:
          0.07009536 = sum of:
            0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07009536 = score(doc=2249,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11
    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
  13. Yi, K.: ¬A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags (2010) 0.02
    0.02302882 = product of:
      0.04605764 = sum of:
        0.02102358 = weight(_text_:information in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02102358 = score(doc=3707,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
        0.025034059 = product of:
          0.050068118 = sum of:
            0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050068118 = score(doc=3707,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    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
  14. Matthews, B.; Jones, C.; Puzon, B.; Moon, J.; Tudhope, D.; Golub, K.; Nielsen, M.L.: ¬An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system (2010) 0.02
    0.021399152 = product of:
      0.042798303 = sum of:
        0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01213797 = score(doc=4171,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
        0.030660335 = product of:
          0.06132067 = sum of:
            0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06132067 = score(doc=4171,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Traditional subject indexing and classification are considered infeasible in many digital collections. This paper seeks to investigate ways of enhancing social tagging via knowledge organization systems, with a view to improving the quality of tags for increased information discovery and retrieval performance. Design/methodology/approach - Enhanced tagging interfaces were developed for exemplar online repositories, and trials were undertaken with author and reader groups to evaluate the effectiveness of tagging augmented with control vocabulary for subject indexing of papers in online repositories. Findings - The results showed that using a knowledge organisation system to augment tagging does appear to increase the effectiveness of non-specialist users (that is, without information science training) in subject indexing. Research limitations/implications - While limited by the size and scope of the trials undertaken, these results do point to the usefulness of a mixed approach in supporting the subject indexing of online resources. Originality/value - The value of this work is as a guide to future developments in the practical support for resource indexing in online repositories.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Content architecture: exploiting and managing diverse resources: proceedings of the first national conference of the United Kingdom chapter of the International Society for Knowedge Organization (ISKO)
  15. Kipp, M.E.I.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2008) 0.02
    0.020170141 = product of:
      0.040340282 = sum of:
        0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01029941 = score(doc=2278,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
        0.030040871 = product of:
          0.060081743 = sum of:
            0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.060081743 = score(doc=2278,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Content
    This study examines the question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval. Participants were asked to search a social bookmarking tool specialising in academic articles (CiteULike) and an online journal database (Pubmed) in order to determine if users found tags were useful in their search process. The actions of each participants were captured using screen capture software and they were asked to describe their search process. The preliminary study showed that users did indeed make use of tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, users also made use of controlled vocabularies in the journal database.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11
    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
  16. Fox, M.J.: Communities of practice, gender and social tagging (2012) 0.02
    0.020170141 = product of:
      0.040340282 = sum of:
        0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01029941 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
        0.030040871 = product of:
          0.060081743 = sum of:
            0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.060081743 = score(doc=873,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Social or collaborative tagging enables users to organize and label resources on the web. Libraries and other information environments hope that tagging can complement professional subject access with user-created terms. But who are the taggers, and does their language represent that of the user population? Some language theorists believe that inherent variables, such as gender or race, can be responsible for language use, whereas other researchers endorse more multiply-influenced practice-based approaches, where interactions with others affect language use more than a single variable. To explore whether linguistic variation in tagging is influenced more by gender or context, in this exploratory study, I will analyze the content and quantity of tags used on LibraryThing. This study seeks to dismantle stereotypical views of women's language use and to suggest a community of practice-based approach to analyzing social tags.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
  17. Seeman, D.: Naming names : the ethics of identification in digital library metadata (2012) 0.02
    0.019949988 = product of:
      0.039899975 = sum of:
        0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014865918 = score(doc=416,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
        0.025034059 = product of:
          0.050068118 = sum of:
            0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050068118 = score(doc=416,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    In many digital libraries, visual objects are published and metadata attached to allow for search and retrieval. For visual objects in which people appear, names are often added to the metadata so that digital library users can search for people appearing in these objects. Although this seems straightforward, there are ethical implications of adding names to metadata for visual objects. This paper explores the impact of this action and discusses relevant ethical issues it raises. It asserts that an individual's right to privacy and control over personal information must be weighed against the benefit of the object to society and the professional ethic to authentically represent a resource through its metadata. Context and an understanding of the major ethical issues will inform the practical decision of whether to keep objects online and add metadata to them, but items should generally be published unless there are clear ethical violations or a community relationship is in jeopardy.
    Content
    Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_c.pdf.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.5, S.325-331
  18. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.02
    0.017903835 = product of:
      0.03580767 = sum of:
        0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014565565 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
        0.021242103 = product of:
          0.042484205 = sum of:
            0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042484205 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    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.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.1, S.35-43
  19. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.02
    0.017528716 = product of:
      0.035057433 = sum of:
        0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014565565 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
        0.02049187 = product of:
          0.04098374 = sum of:
            0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04098374 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  20. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.02
    0.017121121 = product of:
      0.034242243 = sum of:
        0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017165681 = score(doc=2648,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
        0.01707656 = product of:
          0.03415312 = sum of:
            0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03415312 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.
    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

Languages

  • e 91
  • d 18

Types

  • a 96
  • el 7
  • m 7
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • More… Less…