Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Jacob, E.K."
  1. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: User-generated genre tags through the lens of genre theories (2014) 0.03
    0.03228366 = product of:
      0.06456732 = sum of:
        0.06456732 = sum of:
          0.0403123 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0403123 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
                0.044755515 = queryNorm
              0.19951613 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
          0.024255017 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.024255017 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.044755515 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, 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=1450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  2. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.02
    0.015117113 = product of:
      0.030234225 = sum of:
        0.030234225 = product of:
          0.06046845 = sum of:
            0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06046845 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044755515 = queryNorm
                0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.
  3. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: Investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies : a case of wild or tamed categorization? (2014) 0.01
    0.010719304 = product of:
      0.021438608 = sum of:
        0.021438608 = product of:
          0.042877216 = sum of:
            0.042877216 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042877216 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044755515 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    5. 9.2014 16:22:27
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  4. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The legacy of pragmatism : implications for knowledge organization in a pluralistic universe (2000) 0.01
    0.0106115695 = product of:
      0.021223139 = sum of:
        0.021223139 = product of:
          0.042446278 = sum of:
            0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042446278 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044755515 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.16-22
  5. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.01
    0.009095631 = product of:
      0.018191261 = sum of:
        0.018191261 = product of:
          0.036382522 = sum of:
            0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036382522 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044755515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
  6. Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011) 0.01
    0.009095631 = product of:
      0.018191261 = sum of:
        0.018191261 = product of:
          0.036382522 = sum of:
            0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036382522 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044755515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22