Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

0.030876845 = product of:
  0.06175369 = sum of:
    0.06175369 = sum of:
      0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026388418 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = 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)

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".

0.030876845 = product of:
  0.06175369 = sum of:
    0.06175369 = sum of:
      0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026388418 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = 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)

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

0.030876845 = product of:
  0.06175369 = sum of:
    0.06175369 = sum of:
      0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026388418 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = 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)

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

0.024701476 = product of:
  0.049402952 = sum of:
    0.049402952 = sum of:
      0.021110734 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021110734 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.028292218 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028292218 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = 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

0.01583305 = product of:
  0.0316661 = sum of:
    0.0316661 = product of:
      0.0633322 = sum of:
        0.0633322 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0633322 = score(doc=1370,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Large image collections on the Web need to be organized for effective retrieval. Metadata has a key role in image retrieval but rely on professionally assigned tags which is not a viable option. Current content-based image retrieval systems have not demonstrated sufficient utility on large-scale image sources on the web, and are usually used as a supplement to existing text-based image retrieval systems. We present two social tagging alternatives in the form of photo-sharing networks and image labeling games. Here we analyze these applications to evaluate their usefulness from the semantic point of view, investigating the management of social tagging for indexing. The findings of the study have shown that social tagging can generate a sizeable number of tags that can be classified as in terpretive for an image, and that tagging behaviour has a manageable and adjustable nature depending on tagging guidelines.

0.013194209 = product of:
  0.026388418 = sum of:
    0.026388418 = product of:
      0.052776836 = sum of:
        0.052776836 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052776836 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die Entstehung von Social Software ermöglicht es Nutzern, in großem Umfang im Netz zu publizieren. Bisher liegen aber nur wenige empirische Befunde zu funktionalen Eigenschaften sowie Qualitätsaspekten von Nutzerbeiträgen im Kontext von Informationsmanagement und Information Retrieval vor. Diese Arbeit diskutiert grundlegende Partizipationsformen, präsentiert empirische Studien über Social Tagging, Blogbeiträge sowie Relevanzbeurteilungen und entwickelt Design und Implementierung einer "sozialen" Informationsarchitektur für ein partizipatives Onlinehilfesystem.

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem

0.012927632 = product of:
  0.025855264 = sum of:
    0.025855264 = product of:
      0.051710527 = sum of:
        0.051710527 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051710527 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".

RSWK

Information Retrieval

Subject

Information Retrieval

0.012503512 = product of:
  0.025007024 = sum of:
    0.025007024 = product of:
      0.05001405 = sum of:
        0.05001405 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05001405 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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

0.0114265205 = product of:
  0.022853041 = sum of:
    0.022853041 = product of:
      0.045706082 = sum of:
        0.045706082 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045706082 = score(doc=2918,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.011195658 = product of:
  0.022391316 = sum of:
    0.022391316 = product of:
      0.04478263 = sum of:
        0.04478263 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04478263 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.010609582 = product of:
  0.021219164 = sum of:
    0.021219164 = product of:
      0.04243833 = sum of:
        0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04243833 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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

0.010609582 = product of:
  0.021219164 = sum of:
    0.021219164 = product of:
      0.04243833 = sum of:
        0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04243833 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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

0.010609582 = product of:
  0.021219164 = sum of:
    0.021219164 = product of:
      0.04243833 = sum of:
        0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04243833 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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

0.009329714 = product of:
  0.018659428 = sum of:
    0.018659428 = product of:
      0.037318856 = sum of:
        0.037318856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037318856 = score(doc=4938,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tags associated with social images are valuable information source for superior image search and retrieval experiences. Although various heuristics are valuable to boost tag-based search for images, there is a lack of general framework to study the impact of these heuristics. Specifically, the task of ranking images matching a given tag query based on their associated tags in descending order of relevance has not been well studied. In this article, we take the first step to propose a generic, flexible, and extensible framework for this task and exploit it for a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of various methods for ranking images. To this end, we identified five orthogonal dimensions to quantify the matching score between a tagged image and a tag query. These five dimensions are: (i) tag relatedness to measure the degree of effectiveness of a tag describing the tagged image; (ii) tag discrimination to quantify the degree of discrimination of a tag with respect to the entire tagged image collection; (iii) tag length normalization analogous to document length normalization in web search; (iv) tag-query matching model for the matching score computation between an image tag and a query tag; and (v) query model for tag query rewriting. For each dimension, we identify a few implementations and evaluate their impact on NUS-WIDE dataset, the largest human-annotated dataset consisting of more than 269K tagged images from Flickr. We evaluated 81 single-tag queries and 443 multi-tag queries over 288 search methods and systematically compare their performances using standard metrics including Precision at top-K, Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG).

0.009329714 = product of:
  0.018659428 = sum of:
    0.018659428 = product of:
      0.037318856 = sum of:
        0.037318856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037318856 = score(doc=295,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.

0.009329714 = product of:
  0.018659428 = sum of:
    0.018659428 = product of:
      0.037318856 = sum of:
        0.037318856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037318856 = score(doc=296,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.

0.009235946 = product of:
  0.018471893 = sum of:
    0.018471893 = product of:
      0.036943786 = sum of:
        0.036943786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036943786 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.

0.008841318 = product of:
  0.017682636 = sum of:
    0.017682636 = product of:
      0.035365272 = sum of:
        0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035365272 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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

0.008841318 = product of:
  0.017682636 = sum of:
    0.017682636 = product of:
      0.035365272 = sum of:
        0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035365272 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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

0.008841318 = product of:
  0.017682636 = sum of:
    0.017682636 = product of:
      0.035365272 = sum of:
        0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035365272 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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