Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.10
    0.10066981 = product of:
      0.20133962 = sum of:
        0.20133962 = sum of:
          0.15970877 = weight(_text_:headings in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.15970877 = score(doc=3602,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051211677 = queryNorm
              0.6430178 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
          0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04163085 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051211677 = 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)
    
    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
  2. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.09
    0.08997135 = product of:
      0.1799427 = sum of:
        0.1799427 = sum of:
          0.13831185 = weight(_text_:headings in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.13831185 = score(doc=3601,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051211677 = queryNorm
              0.55686975 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
          0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04163085 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051211677 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.06
    0.0599809 = product of:
      0.1199618 = sum of:
        0.1199618 = sum of:
          0.0922079 = weight(_text_:headings in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0922079 = score(doc=2666,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051211677 = queryNorm
              0.37124652 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
          0.0277539 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0277539 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051211677 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  4. Yi, K.: ¬A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags (2010) 0.03
    0.03327266 = product of:
      0.06654532 = sum of:
        0.06654532 = product of:
          0.13309065 = sum of:
            0.13309065 = weight(_text_:headings in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13309065 = score(doc=3707,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.5358482 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Social tagging or collaborative tagging has become a new trend in the organization, management, and discovery of digital information. The rapid growth of shared information mostly controlled by social tags poses a new challenge for social tag-based information organization and retrieval. A plausible approach for this challenge is linking social tags to a controlled vocabulary. As an introductory step for this approach, this study investigates ways of predicting relevant subject headings for resources from social tags assigned to the resources. The prediction of subject headings was measured by five different similarity measures: tf-idf, cosine-based similarity (CoS), Jaccard similarity (or Jaccard coefficient; JS), Mutual information (MI), and information radius (IRad). Their results were compared to those by professionals. The results show that a CoS measure based on top five social tags was most effective. Inclusions of more social tags only aggravate the performance. The performance of JS is comparable to the performance of CoS while tf-idf is comparable with up to 70% less than the best performance. MI and IRad have inferior performance compared to the other methods. This study demonstrates the application of the similarity measuring techniques to the prediction of correct Library of Congress subject headings.
  5. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.03
    0.028232787 = product of:
      0.056465574 = sum of:
        0.056465574 = product of:
          0.11293115 = sum of:
            0.11293115 = weight(_text_:headings in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11293115 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.
  6. Lee, D.H.; Schleyer, T.: Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing : a comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers (2012) 0.02
    0.023527324 = product of:
      0.04705465 = sum of:
        0.04705465 = product of:
          0.0941093 = sum of:
            0.0941093 = weight(_text_:headings in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0941093 = score(doc=383,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.3789019 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.
  7. Golub, K.; Lykke, M.; Tudhope, D.: Enhancing social tagging with automated keywords from the Dewey Decimal Classification (2014) 0.02
    0.01663633 = product of:
      0.03327266 = sum of:
        0.03327266 = product of:
          0.06654532 = sum of:
            0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06654532 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of applying the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as an established knowledge organization system (KOS) for enhancing social tagging, with the ultimate purpose of improving subject indexing and information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Over 11.000 Intute metadata records in politics were used. Totally, 28 politics students were each given four tasks, in which a total of 60 resources were tagged in two different configurations, one with uncontrolled social tags only and another with uncontrolled social tags as well as suggestions from a controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary was DDC comprising also mappings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Findings - The results demonstrate the importance of controlled vocabulary suggestions for indexing and retrieval: to help produce ideas of which tags to use, to make it easier to find focus for the tagging, to ensure consistency and to increase the number of access points in retrieval. The value and usefulness of the suggestions proved to be dependent on the quality of the suggestions, both as to conceptual relevance to the user and as to appropriateness of the terminology. Originality/value - No research has investigated the enhancement of social tagging with suggestions from the DDC, an established KOS, in a user trial, comparing social tagging only and social tagging enhanced with the suggestions. This paper is a final reflection on all aspects of the study.
  8. Kipp, M.E.I.; Campbell, D.G.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2010) 0.02
    0.01663633 = product of:
      0.03327266 = sum of:
        0.03327266 = product of:
          0.06654532 = sum of:
            0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06654532 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval was examined in this pilot study. Many tags are subject related and could work well as index terms or entry vocabulary; however, folksonomies also include relationships that are traditionally not included in controlled vocabularies including affective or time and task related tags and the user name of the tagger. Participants searched a social bookmarking tool, specialising in academic articles (CiteULike), and an online journal database (Pubmed) for articles relevant to a given information request. Screen capture software was used to collect participant actions and a semi-structured interview asked them to describe their search process. Preliminary results showed that participants did use tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, participants also used controlled vocabularies in the journal database to locate useful search terms and links to related articles supplied by Pubmed. Additionally, participants reported using user names of taggers and group names to help select resources by relevance. The inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants. This study suggests that while users value social and subjective factors when searching, they also find utility in objective factors such as subject headings. Most importantly, users are interested in the ability of systems to connect them with related articles whether via subject access or other means.
  9. Stvilia, B.; Jörgensen, C.: Member activities and quality of tags in a collection of historical photographs in Flickr (2010) 0.02
    0.01663633 = product of:
      0.03327266 = sum of:
        0.03327266 = product of:
          0.06654532 = sum of:
            0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06654532 = score(doc=4117,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.
  10. Rafferty, P.; Murphy, H.: Is there nothing outside the tags? : towards a poststructuralist analysis of social tagging (2015) 0.02
    0.01663633 = product of:
      0.03327266 = sum of:
        0.03327266 = product of:
          0.06654532 = sum of:
            0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06654532 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of the research is to explore relationships between social tagging and key poststructuralist principles; to devise and construct an analytical framework through which key poststructuralist principles are converted into workable research questions and applied to analyse Librarything tags, and to assess the validity of performing such an analysis. The research hypothesis is that tagging represents an imperfect analogy for the poststructuralist project Design/methodology/approach Tags from LibraryThing and from a library OPAC were compared and constrasted with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and publishers' descriptions. Research questions derived from poststructuralism, asked whether tags destabilise meaning, whether and how far the death of the author is expressed in tags, and whether tags deconstruct LCSH. Findings Tags can temporarily destabilise meaning by obfuscating the structure of a word. Meaning is destabilised, perhaps only momentarily, and then it is recreated; it might resemble the original meaning, or it may not, however any attempt to make tags useful or functional necessarily imposes some form of structure. The analysis indicates that in tagging, the author, if not dead, is ignored. Authoritative interpretations are not pervasively mimicked in the tags. In relation to LCSH, tagging decentres the dominant view, but neither exposes nor judges it. Nor does tagging achieve the final stage of the deconstructive process, showing the dominant view to be a constructed reality. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to have attempted a critical theoretical approach to social tagging. It offers a novel methodological approach to undertaking analysis based on poststructuralist theory.
  11. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01
    0.01387695 = product of:
      0.0277539 = sum of:
        0.0277539 = product of:
          0.0555078 = sum of:
            0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0555078 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.15-22
  12. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01
    0.012265607 = product of:
      0.024531214 = sum of:
        0.024531214 = product of:
          0.049062427 = sum of:
            0.049062427 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049062427 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  13. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01
    0.012142331 = product of:
      0.024284663 = sum of:
        0.024284663 = product of:
          0.048569325 = sum of:
            0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048569325 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  14. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01
    0.010407712 = product of:
      0.020815425 = sum of:
        0.020815425 = product of:
          0.04163085 = sum of:
            0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04163085 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  15. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01
    0.010407712 = product of:
      0.020815425 = sum of:
        0.020815425 = product of:
          0.04163085 = sum of:
            0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04163085 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
  16. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01
    0.008673094 = product of:
      0.017346188 = sum of:
        0.017346188 = product of:
          0.034692377 = sum of:
            0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034692377 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  17. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.01
    0.008673094 = product of:
      0.017346188 = sum of:
        0.017346188 = product of:
          0.034692377 = sum of:
            0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034692377 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  18. 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
    0.008673094 = product of:
      0.017346188 = sum of:
        0.017346188 = product of:
          0.034692377 = sum of:
            0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034692377 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  19. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01
    0.008673094 = product of:
      0.017346188 = sum of:
        0.017346188 = product of:
          0.034692377 = sum of:
            0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034692377 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  20. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.01
    0.008673094 = product of:
      0.017346188 = sum of:
        0.017346188 = product of:
          0.034692377 = sum of:
            0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034692377 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22