-
Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009)
0.05
0.047230437 = product of:
0.094460875 = sum of:
0.01367703 = weight(_text_:information in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01367703 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
0.080783844 = sum of:
0.042300213 = weight(_text_:services in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042300213 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03848363 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- 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
-
Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007)
0.02
0.02333082 = product of:
0.04666164 = sum of:
0.016750874 = weight(_text_:information in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016750874 = score(doc=2364,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
0.029910767 = product of:
0.059821535 = sum of:
0.059821535 = weight(_text_:services in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059821535 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Imprint
- Medford, N.J. : Information Today
- LCSH
- Libraries / Information technology
Electronic reference services (Libraries)
- Subject
- Libraries / Information technology
Electronic reference services (Libraries)
-
Shiri, A.: Trend analysis in social tagging : an LIS perspective (2007)
0.02
0.020547485 = product of:
0.04109497 = sum of:
0.012894828 = weight(_text_:information in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012894828 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
0.028200142 = product of:
0.056400284 = sum of:
0.056400284 = weight(_text_:services in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056400284 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The aim of the present study was to identify and categorize social tagging trends and developments as revealed by the analysis of library and information science scholarly and professional literature.
- 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".
-
Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007)
0.02
0.020480242 = product of:
0.08192097 = sum of:
0.08192097 = sum of:
0.049851276 = weight(_text_:services in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049851276 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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".
-
Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009)
0.02
0.020195961 = product of:
0.080783844 = sum of:
0.080783844 = sum of:
0.042300213 = weight(_text_:services in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042300213 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03848363 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
- Source
- Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.3, S.174-184
-
Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009)
0.02
0.020195961 = product of:
0.080783844 = sum of:
0.080783844 = sum of:
0.042300213 = weight(_text_:services in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042300213 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03848363 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
- Source
- Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.4, S.243-250
-
Nov, O.; Naaman, M.; Ye, C.: Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing community : a multidimensional perspective (2010)
0.02
0.01687181 = product of:
0.03374362 = sum of:
0.016118534 = weight(_text_:information in 3424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016118534 = score(doc=3424,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3424, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3424)
0.017625088 = product of:
0.035250176 = sum of:
0.035250176 = weight(_text_:services in 3424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035250176 = score(doc=3424,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3424, 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=3424)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- In recent years we have witnessed a significant growth of social-computing communities - online services in which users share information in various forms. As content contributions from participants are critical to the viability of these communities, it is important to understand what drives users to participate and share information with others in such settings. We extend previous literature on user contribution by studying the factors that are associated with various forms of participation in a large online photo-sharing community. Using survey and system data, we examine four different forms of participation and consider the differences between these forms. We build on theories of motivation to examine the relationship between users' participation and their motivations with respect to their tenure in the community. Amongst our findings, we identify individual motivations (both extrinsic and intrinsic) that underpin user participation, and their effects on different forms of information sharing; we show that tenure in the community does affect participation, but that this effect depends on the type of participation activity. Finally, we demonstrate that tenure in the community has a weak moderating effect on a number of motivations with regard to their effect on participation. Directions for future research, as well as implications for theory and practice, are discussed.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.555-566
-
Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008)
0.02
0.016076691 = product of:
0.032153383 = sum of:
0.016118534 = weight(_text_:information in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016118534 = score(doc=2648,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016)
0.02
0.016076691 = product of:
0.032153383 = sum of:
0.016118534 = weight(_text_:information in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016118534 = score(doc=2891,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1089-1104
- Theme
- Information Gateway
-
Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007)
0.02
0.015410613 = product of:
0.030821227 = sum of:
0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009671121 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
0.021150107 = product of:
0.042300213 = sum of:
0.042300213 = weight(_text_:services in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042300213 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
- Content
- Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 157 - Classification and Indexing
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.02
0.015367982 = product of:
0.030735964 = sum of:
0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008059267 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
0.022676697 = product of:
0.045353394 = sum of:
0.045353394 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045353394 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- 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
-
Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012)
0.01
0.013716185 = product of:
0.02743237 = sum of:
0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011397525 = score(doc=515,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2488-2502
-
Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019)
0.01
0.013716185 = product of:
0.02743237 = sum of:
0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011397525 = score(doc=5492,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- 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
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.2, S.155-175
-
Estrada, L.M.; Hildebrand, M.; Boer, V. de; Ossenbruggen, J. van: Time-based tags for fiction movies : comparing experts to novices using a video labeling game (2017)
0.01
0.012842177 = product of:
0.025684355 = sum of:
0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 3347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008059267 = score(doc=3347,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3347, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3347)
0.017625088 = product of:
0.035250176 = sum of:
0.035250176 = weight(_text_:services in 3347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035250176 = score(doc=3347,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3347, 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=3347)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The cultural heritage sector has embraced social tagging as a way to increase both access to online content and to engage users with their digital collections. In this article, we build on two current lines of research. (a) We use Waisda?, an existing labeling game, to add time-based annotations to content. (b) In this context, we investigate the role of experts in human-based computation (nichesourcing). We report on a small-scale experiment in which we applied Waisda? to content from film archives. We study the differences in the type of time-based tags between experts and novices for film clips in a crowdsourcing setting. The findings show high similarity in the number and type of tags (mostly factual). In the less frequent tags, however, experts used more domain-specific terms. We conclude that competitive games are not suited to elicit real expert-level descriptions. We also confirm that providing guidelines, based on conceptual frameworks that are more suited to moving images in a time-based fashion, could result in increasing the quality of the tags, thus allowing for creating more tag-based innovative services for online audiovisual heritage.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.348-364
-
Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008)
0.01
0.010972949 = product of:
0.021945897 = sum of:
0.00911802 = weight(_text_:information in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00911802 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
0.012827878 = product of:
0.025655756 = sum of:
0.025655756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025655756 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007)
0.01
0.0102737425 = product of:
0.020547485 = sum of:
0.006447414 = weight(_text_:information in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006447414 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.014100071 = product of:
0.028200142 = sum of:
0.028200142 = weight(_text_:services in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028200142 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?
- 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".
-
DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008)
0.01
0.009637646 = product of:
0.019275293 = sum of:
0.006447414 = weight(_text_:information in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006447414 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
0.012827878 = product of:
0.025655756 = sum of:
0.025655756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025655756 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
-
Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007)
0.01
0.0070500355 = product of:
0.028200142 = sum of:
0.028200142 = product of:
0.056400284 = sum of:
0.056400284 = weight(_text_:services in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056400284 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 4595, 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=4595)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Hunter, J.: Collaborative semantic tagging and annotation systems (2009)
0.01
0.006447414 = product of:
0.025789656 = sum of:
0.025789656 = weight(_text_:information in 7382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025789656 = score(doc=7382,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 7382, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7382)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 43(2009), S.xxx-xxx
-
Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008)
0.01
0.006413939 = product of:
0.025655756 = sum of:
0.025655756 = product of:
0.05131151 = sum of:
0.05131151 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05131151 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Pages
- S.15-22
