-
Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008)
0.05
0.04523431 = product of:
0.09046862 = sum of:
0.09046862 = sum of:
0.06618728 = weight(_text_:2006 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06618728 = score(doc=2657,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19682638 = queryWeight, product of:
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.3362724 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
0.024281347 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024281347 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
-
DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008)
0.04
0.039161514 = product of:
0.07832303 = sum of:
0.07832303 = sum of:
0.054041684 = weight(_text_:2006 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054041684 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19682638 = queryWeight, product of:
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.27456525 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
0.024281347 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024281347 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007)
0.03
0.028659932 = product of:
0.057319865 = sum of:
0.057319865 = product of:
0.11463973 = sum of:
0.11463973 = weight(_text_:2006 in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11463973 = score(doc=533,freq=18.0), product of:
0.19682638 = queryWeight, product of:
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.58244085 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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)?
-
Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006)
0.03
0.026433943 = product of:
0.052867886 = sum of:
0.052867886 = product of:
0.10573577 = sum of:
0.10573577 = weight(_text_:2006 in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10573577 = score(doc=119,freq=5.0), product of:
0.19682638 = queryWeight, product of:
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.53720325 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
- Year
- 2006
-
Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007)
0.02
0.01910662 = product of:
0.03821324 = sum of:
0.03821324 = product of:
0.07642648 = sum of:
0.07642648 = weight(_text_:2006 in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07642648 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19682638 = queryWeight, product of:
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.3882939 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Autoren wissenschaftlicher Artikel stehen unterschiedliche Wege bei der Recherche nach Hintergrundmaterial zu ihren Projekten zur Verfügung. Dass Social-Bookmarking-Dienste, die als Teil des Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) und der Bibliothek 2.0 (Danowski, 2006) genannt werden, eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zu den herkömmlichen Nachweisdatenbanken sein können, soll der vorliegende Artikel zeigen.
-
Simon, J.: Interdisciplinary knowledge creation : using wikis in science (2006)
0.02
0.018881386 = product of:
0.037762772 = sum of:
0.037762772 = product of:
0.075525545 = sum of:
0.075525545 = weight(_text_:2006 in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.075525545 = score(doc=2516,freq=5.0), product of:
0.19682638 = queryWeight, product of:
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.38371658 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
- Year
- 2006
-
Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006)
0.01
0.01462546 = product of:
0.02925092 = sum of:
0.02925092 = product of:
0.05850184 = sum of:
0.05850184 = weight(_text_:2006 in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05850184 = score(doc=2476,freq=3.0), product of:
0.19682638 = queryWeight, product of:
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.2972256 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
3.0 = termFreq=3.0
4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Year
- 2006
-
Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008)
0.01
0.012140674 = product of:
0.024281347 = sum of:
0.024281347 = product of:
0.048562694 = sum of:
0.048562694 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048562694 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.15-22
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.01
0.010730941 = product of:
0.021461882 = sum of:
0.021461882 = product of:
0.042923763 = sum of:
0.042923763 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042923763 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.14-22
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
-
Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008)
0.01
0.01062309 = product of:
0.02124618 = sum of:
0.02124618 = product of:
0.04249236 = sum of:
0.04249236 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04249236 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 21. 6.2009 12:22:44
-
Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009)
0.01
0.009105505 = product of:
0.01821101 = sum of:
0.01821101 = product of:
0.03642202 = sum of:
0.03642202 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03642202 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = 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(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.2010 12:35:22
-
Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009)
0.01
0.009105505 = product of:
0.01821101 = sum of:
0.01821101 = product of:
0.03642202 = sum of:
0.03642202 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03642202 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009)
0.01
0.009105505 = product of:
0.01821101 = sum of:
0.01821101 = product of:
0.03642202 = sum of:
0.03642202 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03642202 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011)
0.01
0.009105505 = product of:
0.01821101 = sum of:
0.01821101 = product of:
0.03642202 = sum of:
0.03642202 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03642202 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = 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(1/2)
- 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
-
Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007)
0.01
0.0075879213 = product of:
0.015175843 = sum of:
0.015175843 = product of:
0.030351685 = sum of:
0.030351685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030351685 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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".
-
Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008)
0.01
0.0075879213 = product of:
0.015175843 = sum of:
0.015175843 = product of:
0.030351685 = sum of:
0.030351685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030351685 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = 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(1/2)
- 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
-
Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008)
0.01
0.0075879213 = product of:
0.015175843 = sum of:
0.015175843 = product of:
0.030351685 = sum of:
0.030351685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030351685 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012)
0.01
0.0075879213 = product of:
0.015175843 = sum of:
0.015175843 = product of:
0.030351685 = sum of:
0.030351685 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030351685 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 25.12.2012 15:22:37
-
Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016)
0.01
0.0075879213 = product of:
0.015175843 = sum of:
0.015175843 = product of:
0.030351685 = sum of:
0.030351685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030351685 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 21. 4.2016 11:23:22
-
Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019)
0.01
0.0075879213 = product of:
0.015175843 = sum of:
0.015175843 = product of:
0.030351685 = sum of:
0.030351685 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030351685 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15689632 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0448041 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
