Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Social tagging in a linked data environment. Edited by Diane Rasmussen Pennington and Louise F. Spiteri. London, UK: Facet Publishing, 2018. 240 pp. £74.95 (paperback). (ISBN 9781783303380) (2019) 0.09
    0.08770707 = product of:
      0.13156061 = sum of:
        0.08476039 = weight(_text_:electronic in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08476039 = score(doc=101,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.43194336 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
        0.046800215 = product of:
          0.09360043 = sum of:
            0.09360043 = weight(_text_:publishing in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09360043 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Imprint
    London, UK : Facet Publishing
    LCSH
    Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
    Electronic information resources
    Subject
    Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
    Electronic information resources
  2. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.06
    0.061548676 = product of:
      0.09232301 = sum of:
        0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07192158 = score(doc=3602,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
        0.020401431 = product of:
          0.040802862 = sum of:
            0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040802862 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.04
    0.039587595 = product of:
      0.059381388 = sum of:
        0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042380195 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  4. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.02
    0.02397386 = product of:
      0.07192158 = sum of:
        0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07192158 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    LCSH
    Electronic reference services (Libraries)
    Subject
    Electronic reference services (Libraries)
  5. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.02
    0.019978218 = product of:
      0.05993465 = sum of:
        0.05993465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05993465 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.30543008 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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.
  6. Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005) 0.01
    0.014126732 = product of:
      0.042380195 = sum of:
        0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042380195 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
  7. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Flack, M.: Social bookmarking tools (II) : a case study - Connotea (2005) 0.01
    0.011030916 = product of:
      0.03309275 = sum of:
        0.03309275 = product of:
          0.0661855 = sum of:
            0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0661855 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.
  8. Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012) 0.01
    0.011030916 = product of:
      0.03309275 = sum of:
        0.03309275 = product of:
          0.0661855 = sum of:
            0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0661855 = score(doc=432,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    For a long while, the creation of Web content required at least basic knowledge of Web technologies, meaning that for many Web users, the Web was de facto a read-only medium. This changed with the arrival of the "social Web," when Web applications started to allow users to publish Web content without technological expertise. Here, content creation is often an inclusive, iterative, and interactive process. Examples of social Web applications include blogs, social networking sites, as well as many specialized applications, for example, for saving and sharing bookmarks and publishing photos. Social semantic Web applications are social Web applications in which knowledge is expressed not only in the form of text and multimedia but also through informal to formal annotations that describe, reflect, and enhance the content. These annotations often take the shape of RDF graphs backed by ontologies, but less formal annotations such as free-form tags or tags from a controlled vocabulary may also be available. Wikis are one example of social Web applications for collecting and sharing knowledge. They allow users to easily create and edit documents, so-called wiki pages, using a Web browser. The pages in a wiki are often heavily interlinked, which makes it easy to find related information and browse the content.
  9. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01
    0.00801444 = product of:
      0.024043318 = sum of:
        0.024043318 = product of:
          0.048086636 = sum of:
            0.048086636 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048086636 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  10. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005) 0.01
    0.007721641 = product of:
      0.023164922 = sum of:
        0.023164922 = product of:
          0.046329845 = sum of:
            0.046329845 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.046329845 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.18892732 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    A number of such utilities are presented here, together with an emergent new class of tools that caters more to the academic communities and that stores not only user-supplied tags, but also structured citation metadata terms wherever it is possible to glean this information from service providers. This provision of rich, structured metadata means that the user is provided with an accurate third-party identification of a document, which could be used to retrieve that document, but is also free to search on user-supplied terms so that documents of interest (or rather, references to documents) can be made discoverable and aggregated with other similar descriptions either recorded by the user or by other users. Matt Biddulph in an XML.com article last year, in which he reviews one of the better known social bookmarking tools, del.icio.us, declares that the "del.icio.us-space has three major axes: users, tags, and URLs". We fully support that assessment but choose to present this deconstruction in a reverse order. This paper thus first recaps a brief history of bookmarks, then discusses the current interest in tagging, moves on to look at certain social issues, and finally considers some of the feature sets offered by the new bookmarking tools. A general review of a number of common social bookmarking tools is presented in the annex. A companion paper describes a case study in more detail: the tool that Nature Publishing Group has made available to the scientific community as an experimental entrée into this field - Connotea; our reasons for endeavouring to provide such a utility; and experiences gained and lessons learned.
  11. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01
    0.0068004774 = product of:
      0.020401431 = sum of:
        0.020401431 = product of:
          0.040802862 = sum of:
            0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040802862 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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(1/3)
    
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  12. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.01
    0.0068004774 = product of:
      0.020401431 = sum of:
        0.020401431 = product of:
          0.040802862 = sum of:
            0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040802862 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01
    0.0056670653 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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(1/3)
    
    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".
  14. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.01
    0.0056670653 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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. 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
    0.0056670653 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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(1/3)
    
    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
    0.0056670653 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  17. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01
    0.0056670653 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = product of:
          0.03400239 = sum of:
            0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03400239 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  18. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.00
    0.0045336518 = product of:
      0.013600955 = sum of:
        0.013600955 = product of:
          0.02720191 = sum of:
            0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02720191 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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(1/3)
    
    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
  19. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.00
    0.0045336518 = product of:
      0.013600955 = sum of:
        0.013600955 = product of:
          0.02720191 = sum of:
            0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02720191 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  20. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.00
    0.0045336518 = product of:
      0.013600955 = sum of:
        0.013600955 = product of:
          0.02720191 = sum of:
            0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02720191 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05019314 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45

Types