Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013) 0.04 
    0.03905801 = product of:
  0.11717403 = sum of:
    0.04715293 = weight(_text_:computer in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04715293 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    0.0700211 = weight(_text_:network in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0700211 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.
  2. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.04 
    0.039012402 = product of:
  0.11703721 = sum of:
    0.040380646 = weight(_text_:services in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040380646 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.076656565 = sum of:
      0.0399193 = weight(_text_:resources in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399193 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.036737263 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036737263 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.3, S.174-184
  3. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.04 
    0.039012402 = product of:
  0.11703721 = sum of:
    0.040380646 = weight(_text_:services in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040380646 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.076656565 = sum of:
      0.0399193 = weight(_text_:resources in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399193 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.036737263 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036737263 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.4, S.243-250
  4. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.04 
    0.03789679 = product of:
  0.11369037 = sum of:
    0.057106856 = weight(_text_:services in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057106856 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.344191 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.056583513 = weight(_text_:computer in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056583513 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.34261024 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    LCSH
    Electronic reference services (Libraries)
    Wikis (Computer science)
    Subject
    Electronic reference services (Libraries)
    Wikis (Computer science)
  5. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.02 
    0.024983924 = product of:
  0.07495177 = sum of:
    0.040380646 = weight(_text_:services in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040380646 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
    0.034571126 = product of:
      0.06914225 = sum of:
        0.06914225 = weight(_text_:resources in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06914225 = score(doc=703,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.4191312 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Although user tagging of library resources shows substantial promise as a means of improving the quality of users' access to those resources, several important questions about the level and nature of the warrant for basing retrieval tools on user tagging are yet to receive full consideration by library practitioners and researchers. Among these is the simple evaluative question: What, specifically, are the factors that determine whether or not user-tagging services will be successful? If success is to be defined in terms of the effectiveness with which systems perform the particular functions expected of them (rather than simply in terms of popularity), an understanding is needed both of the multifunctional nature of tagging tools, and of the complex nature of users' mental models of that multifunctionality. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for the evaluation of systems that integrate user tagging with more traditional methods of library resource description.
  6. Wei, W.; Ram, S.: Utilizing sozial bookmarking tag space for Web content discovery : a social network analysis approach (2010) 0.02 
    0.024945006 = product of:
  0.07483502 = sum of:
    0.05601688 = weight(_text_:network in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05601688 = score(doc=1,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2783359 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
    0.018818138 = product of:
      0.037636276 = sum of:
        0.037636276 = weight(_text_:resources in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037636276 = score(doc=1,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.22814612 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Social bookmarking has gained popularity since the advent of Web 2.0. Keywords known as tags are created to annotate web content, and the resulting tag space composed of the tags, the resources, and the users arises as a new platform for web content discovery. Useful and interesting web resources can be located through searching and browsing based on tags, as well as following the user-user connections formed in the social bookmarking community. However, the effectiveness of tag-based search is limited due to the lack of explicitly represented semantics in the tag space. In addition, social connections between users are underused for web content discovery because of the inadequate social functions. In this research, we propose a comprehensive framework to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model. We also studied the structure and properties of various networks emerging from the tag space for the purpose of more efficient web content discovery. The major research approach used in this research is social network analysis (SNA), together with methodologies employed in design science research. The contribution of our research includes: (i) a faceted model to categorize social bookmarking tags; (ii) a relationship ontology to represent the semantics of relationships between tags; (iii) heuristics to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model using analysis of tag-tag co-occurrence networks; (iv) an implemented prototype system as proof-of-concept to validate the feasibility of the reorganization approach; (v) a set of evaluations of the social functions of the current networking features of social bookmarking and a series of recommendations as to how to improve the social functions to facilitate web content discovery.
  7. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.02 
    0.02270303 = product of:
  0.06810909 = sum of:
    0.046679016 = weight(_text_:computer in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046679016 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.02143007 = product of:
      0.04286014 = sum of:
        0.04286014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04286014 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
    Theme
    Computer Based Training
  8. Li, D.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.; He, B.; Tang, J.; Yan, E.; Lin, N.; Qin, Z.; Dong, T.: Modeling topic and community structure in social tagging : the TTR-LDA-Community model (2011) 0.02 
    0.022048479 = product of:
  0.066145435 = sum of:
    0.049512394 = weight(_text_:network in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049512394 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
    0.016633041 = product of:
      0.033266082 = sum of:
        0.033266082 = weight(_text_:resources in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033266082 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The presence of social networks in complex systems has made networks and community structure a focal point of study in many domains. Previous studies have focused on the structural emergence and growth of communities and on the topics displayed within the network. However, few scholars have closely examined the relationship between the thematic and structural properties of networks. Therefore, this article proposes the Tagger Tag Resource-Latent Dirichlet Allocation-Community model (TTR-LDA-Community model), which combines the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model with the Girvan-Newman community detection algorithm through an inference mechanism. Using social tagging data from Delicious, this article demonstrates the clustering of active taggers into communities, the topic distributions within communities, and the ranking of taggers, tags, and resources within these communities. The data analysis evaluates patterns in community structure and topical affiliations diachronically. The article evaluates the effectiveness of community detection and the inference mechanism embedded in the model and finds that the TTR-LDA-Community model outperforms other traditional models in tag prediction. This has implications for scholars in domains interested in community detection, profiling, and recommender systems.
  9. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.02 
    0.020965412 = product of:
  0.06289624 = sum of:
    0.047589045 = weight(_text_:services in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047589045 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.015307193 = product of:
      0.030614385 = sum of:
        0.030614385 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030614385 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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".
  10. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.02 
    0.02078418 = product of:
  0.124705076 = sum of:
    0.124705076 = sum of:
      0.09409069 = weight(_text_:resources in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09409069 = score(doc=2891,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.5703653 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.030614385 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030614385 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  11. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.02 
    0.019583093 = product of:
  0.058749277 = sum of:
    0.040380646 = weight(_text_:services in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040380646 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.018368632 = product of:
      0.036737263 = sum of:
        0.036737263 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036737263 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  12. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.02 
    0.01905774 = product of:
  0.057173215 = sum of:
    0.03365054 = weight(_text_:services in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03365054 = score(doc=2813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
    0.023522673 = product of:
      0.047045346 = sum of:
        0.047045346 = weight(_text_:resources in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047045346 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.
  13. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.02 
    0.017864719 = product of:
  0.053594157 = sum of:
    0.02692043 = weight(_text_:services in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02692043 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.026673725 = weight(_text_:computer in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026673725 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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.
    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".
  14. 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) 0.02 
    0.01621645 = product of:
  0.04864935 = sum of:
    0.033342157 = weight(_text_:computer in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033342157 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
    0.015307193 = product of:
      0.030614385 = sum of:
        0.030614385 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030614385 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    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
  15. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.02 
    0.015056772 = product of:
  0.09034063 = sum of:
    0.09034063 = sum of:
      0.047045346 = weight(_text_:resources in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047045346 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.04329528 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04329528 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
    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
  16. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01 
    0.014705489 = product of:
  0.088232934 = sum of:
    0.088232934 = sum of:
      0.057618547 = weight(_text_:resources in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057618547 = score(doc=515,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.349276 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.030614385 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030614385 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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
  17. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.01 
    0.01297316 = product of:
  0.03891948 = sum of:
    0.026673725 = weight(_text_:computer in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026673725 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.012245754 = product of:
      0.024491508 = sum of:
        0.024491508 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024491508 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  18. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01 
    0.010646745 = product of:
  0.063880466 = sum of:
    0.063880466 = sum of:
      0.033266082 = weight(_text_:resources in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033266082 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
      0.030614385 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030614385 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose Online knowledge communities make great contributions to global knowledge sharing and innovation. Resource tagging approaches have been widely adopted in such communities to describe, annotate and organize knowledge resources mainly through users' participation. However, it is unclear what causes the adoption of a particular resource tagging approach. The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that drive users to use a hybrid social tagging approach. Design/methodology/approach Technology acceptance model and social cognitive theory are adopted to support an integrated model proposed in this paper. Zhihu, one of the most popular online knowledge communities in China, is taken as the survey context. A survey was conducted with a questionnaire and collected data were analyzed through structural equation model. Findings A new hybrid social resource tagging approach was refined and described. The empirical results revealed that self-efficacy, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use exert positive effect on users' attitude. Moreover, social influence, PU and attitude impact significantly on users' intention to use a hybrid social resource tagging approach. Originality/value Theoretically, this study enriches the type of resource tagging approaches and recognizes factors influencing user adoption to use it. Regarding the practical parts, the results provide online information system providers and designers with referential strategies to improve the performance of the current tagging approaches and promote them.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  19. Antin, J.; Earp, M.: With a little help from my friends : self-interested and prosocial behavior on MySpace Music (2010) 0.01 
    0.009902478 = product of:
  0.059414867 = sum of:
    0.059414867 = weight(_text_:network in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059414867 = score(doc=3458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    In this article, we explore the dynamics of prosocial and self-interested behavior among musicians on MySpace Music. MySpace Music is an important platform for social interactions and at the same time provides musicians with the opportunity for significant profit. We argue that these forces can be in tension with each other, encouraging musicians to make strategic choices about using MySpace to promote their own or others' rewards. We look for evidence of self-interested and prosocial friending strategies in the social network created by Top Friends links. We find strong evidence that individual preferences for prosocial and self-interested behavior influence friending strategies. Furthermore, our data illustrate a robust relationship between increased prominence and increased attention to others' rewards. These results shed light on how musicians manage their interactions in complex online environments and extend research on social values by demonstrating consistent preferences for prosocial or self-interested behavior in a multifaceted online setting.
  20. Shiri, A.: Trend analysis in social tagging : an LIS perspective (2007) 0.01 
    0.008973477 = product of:
  0.05384086 = sum of:
    0.05384086 = weight(_text_:services in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05384086 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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".

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 4

Types

  • a 44
  • el 8
  • m 3
  • b 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications