Search (113 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.10 
    0.102313645 = product of:
  0.18416455 = sum of:
    0.04454025 = product of:
      0.0890805 = sum of:
        0.0890805 = weight(_text_:headings in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0890805 = score(doc=3601,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04275627 = weight(_text_:library in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04275627 = score(doc=3601,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.4930085 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.01309673 = weight(_text_:of in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01309673 = score(doc=3601,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.07036502 = weight(_text_:congress in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07036502 = score(doc=3601,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.4472166 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.013406289 = product of:
      0.026812578 = sum of:
        0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026812578 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.5555556 = coord(5/9)
    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
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.3, S.174-184
  2. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.10 
    0.10036811 = product of:
  0.18066259 = sum of:
    0.05143065 = product of:
      0.1028613 = sum of:
        0.1028613 = weight(_text_:headings in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1028613 = score(doc=3602,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.026182763 = weight(_text_:library in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026182763 = score(doc=3602,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.019277865 = weight(_text_:of in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019277865 = score(doc=3602,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.07036502 = weight(_text_:congress in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07036502 = score(doc=3602,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.4472166 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.013406289 = product of:
      0.026812578 = sum of:
        0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026812578 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.5555556 = coord(5/9)
    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
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.4, S.243-250
  3. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.06 
    0.0627586 = product of:
  0.14120685 = sum of:
    0.036366962 = product of:
      0.072733924 = sum of:
        0.072733924 = weight(_text_:headings in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072733924 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
    0.021378135 = weight(_text_:library in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021378135 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
    0.01309673 = weight(_text_:of in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01309673 = score(doc=2492,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
    0.07036502 = weight(_text_:congress in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07036502 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.4472166 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    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.
  4. Yi, K.: ¬A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags (2010) 0.06 
    0.05988718 = product of:
  0.13474615 = sum of:
    0.042858876 = product of:
      0.08571775 = sum of:
        0.08571775 = weight(_text_:headings in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08571775 = score(doc=3707,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=3707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
    0.015434646 = weight(_text_:of in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015434646 = score(doc=3707,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
    0.058637515 = weight(_text_:congress in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058637515 = score(doc=3707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3726805 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1658-1672
  5. Stvilia, B.; Jörgensen, C.: Member activities and quality of tags in a collection of historical photographs in Flickr (2010) 0.05 
    0.05213492 = product of:
  0.117303565 = sum of:
    0.021429438 = product of:
      0.042858876 = sum of:
        0.042858876 = weight(_text_:headings in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042858876 = score(doc=4117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=4117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
    0.019421503 = weight(_text_:of in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019421503 = score(doc=4117,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
    0.058637515 = weight(_text_:congress in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058637515 = score(doc=4117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3726805 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2477-2489
  6. Rafferty, P.; Murphy, H.: Is there nothing outside the tags? : towards a poststructuralist analysis of social tagging (2015) 0.04 
    0.042132165 = product of:
  0.09479737 = sum of:
    0.021429438 = product of:
      0.042858876 = sum of:
        0.042858876 = weight(_text_:headings in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042858876 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=1792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
    0.014089839 = weight(_text_:of in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014089839 = score(doc=1792,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
    0.041462988 = weight(_text_:congress in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041462988 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 71(2015) no.3, S.477-502
  7. Golub, K.; Lykke, M.; Tudhope, D.: Enhancing social tagging with automated keywords from the Dewey Decimal Classification (2014) 0.04 
    0.040960416 = product of:
  0.09216093 = sum of:
    0.021429438 = product of:
      0.042858876 = sum of:
        0.042858876 = weight(_text_:headings in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042858876 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
    0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125971865 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.016671322 = weight(_text_:of in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016671322 = score(doc=2918,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.041462988 = weight(_text_:congress in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041462988 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.5, S.801-828
  8. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.03 
    0.034755047 = product of:
  0.10426514 = sum of:
    0.033801798 = weight(_text_:library in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033801798 = score(doc=703,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
    0.02070775 = weight(_text_:of in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02070775 = score(doc=703,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
    0.049755584 = weight(_text_:congress in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049755584 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    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
  9. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03 
    0.03138158 = product of:
  0.070608556 = sum of:
    0.0296935 = product of:
      0.059387 = sum of:
        0.059387 = weight(_text_:headings in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059387 = score(doc=2666,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.020155499 = weight(_text_:library in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020155499 = score(doc=2666,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.011822038 = weight(_text_:of in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011822038 = score(doc=2666,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.0089375265 = product of:
      0.017875053 = sum of:
        0.017875053 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017875053 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    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
  10. Kipp, M.E.; Beak, J.; Choi, I.: Motivations and intentions of flickr users in enriching flick records for Library of Congress photos (2017) 0.02 
    0.02445598 = product of:
  0.07336794 = sum of:
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=3828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
    0.014089839 = weight(_text_:of in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014089839 = score(doc=3828,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
    0.041462988 = weight(_text_:congress in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041462988 = score(doc=3828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2364-2379
  11. Huang, H.; Jörgensen, C.: Characterizing user tagging and Co-occurring metadata in general and specialized metadata collections (2013) 0.02 
    0.023688836 = product of:
  0.071066506 = sum of:
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=1046,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
    0.0117884055 = weight(_text_:of in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0117884055 = score(doc=1046,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
    0.041462988 = weight(_text_:congress in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041462988 = score(doc=1046,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This study aims to identify the categorical characteristics and usage patterns of the most popular image tags in Flickr. The "metadata usage ratio" is introduced as a means of assessing the usage of a popular tag as metadata. We also compare how popular tags are used as image tags or metadata in the Flickr general collection and the Library of Congress's photostream (LCP), also in Flickr. The Flickr popular tags in the list overall are categorically stable, and the changes that do appear reflect Flickr users' evolving technology-driven cultural experience. The popular tags in Flickr had a high number of generic objects and specific locations-related tags and were rarely at the abstract level. Conversely, the popular tags in the LCP describe more in the specific objects and time categories. Flickr users copied the Library of Congress-supplied metadata that related to specific objects or events and standard bibliographic information (e.g., author, format, time references) as popular tags in the LCP. Those popular tags related to generic objects and events showed a high metadata usage ratio, while those related to specific locations and objects showed a low image metadata usage ratio. Popular tags in Flickr appeared less frequently as image metadata when describing specific objects than specific times and locations for historical images in Flickr LCP collections. Understanding how people contribute image tags or image metadata in Flickr helps determine what users need to describe and query images, and could help improve image browsing and retrieval.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.9, S.1878-1889
  12. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01 
    0.014548572 = product of:
  0.043645713 = sum of:
    0.015116624 = weight(_text_:library in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015116624 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.015122802 = weight(_text_:of in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015122802 = score(doc=3387,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.013406289 = product of:
      0.026812578 = sum of:
        0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026812578 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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(3/9)
    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
  13. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01 
    0.014222483 = product of:
  0.04266745 = sum of:
    0.025194373 = weight(_text_:library in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025194373 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.0063011674 = weight(_text_:of in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063011674 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.12216854 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.011171908 = product of:
      0.022343816 = sum of:
        0.022343816 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022343816 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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(3/9)
    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".
  14. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.01 
    0.011867875 = product of:
  0.035603624 = sum of:
    0.008911197 = weight(_text_:of in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008911197 = score(doc=2650,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
    0.0155205205 = product of:
      0.031041041 = sum of:
        0.031041041 = weight(_text_:problems in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031041041 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011171908 = product of:
      0.022343816 = sum of:
        0.022343816 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022343816 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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(3/9)
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  15. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.01 
    0.010940148 = product of:
  0.03282044 = sum of:
    0.010077749 = weight(_text_:library in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010077749 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.013805167 = weight(_text_:of in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013805167 = score(doc=2881,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.0089375265 = product of:
      0.017875053 = sum of:
        0.017875053 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017875053 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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(3/9)
    Abstract
    My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45
  16. 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) 0.01 
    0.010304598 = product of:
  0.046370693 = sum of:
    0.030305803 = product of:
      0.060611606 = sum of:
        0.060611606 = weight(_text_:headings in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060611606 = score(doc=383,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
    0.016064888 = weight(_text_:of in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016064888 = score(doc=383,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1747-1757
  17. Huang, S.-L.; Lin, S.-C.; Chan, Y.-C.: Investigating effectiveness and user acceptance of semantic social tagging for knowledge sharing (2012) 0.01 
    0.009213777 = product of:
  0.041461997 = sum of:
    0.015122802 = weight(_text_:of in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015122802 = score(doc=2732,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
    0.026339196 = product of:
      0.05267839 = sum of:
        0.05267839 = weight(_text_:problems in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05267839 = score(doc=2732,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.3869508 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Social tagging systems enable users to assign arbitrary tags to various digital resources. However, they face vague-meaning problems when users retrieve or present resources with the keyword-based tags. In order to solve these problems, this study takes advantage of Semantic Web technology and the topological characteristics of knowledge maps to develop a system that comprises a semantic tagging mechanism and triple-pattern and visual searching mechanisms. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and user acceptance of these mechanisms in a knowledge sharing context. The results show that the semantic social tagging system is more effective than a keyword-based system. The visualized knowledge map helps users capture an overview of the knowledge domain, reduce cognitive effort for the search, and obtain more enjoyment. Traditional keyword tagging with a keyword search still has the advantage of ease of use and the users had higher intention to use it. This study also proposes directions for future development of semantic social tagging systems.
  18. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.01 
    0.008937928 = product of:
  0.040220674 = sum of:
    0.024941156 = weight(_text_:library in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024941156 = score(doc=3862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
    0.015279518 = weight(_text_:of in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015279518 = score(doc=3862,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    In this article are compared traditional OPAC systems, enriched OPAC, social OPAC and social cataloguing systems.the aim is to underline new theoretical trends and to offer a taxonomic outline of such tools, according to the interaction level granted to users and to the chance to manage user's generated contents in the point of view of the application of web 2.0 tendecies to libraries, in the library 2.0. At the end, a brief review of softwares, both open source and not, that seem promising for this future application.
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: OPAC, SOPAC and social networking: catalogues of Library 2.0?
  19. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.01 
    0.008194712 = product of:
  0.0368762 = sum of:
    0.026182763 = weight(_text_:library in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026182763 = score(doc=309,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
    0.0106934365 = weight(_text_:of in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0106934365 = score(doc=309,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.
  20. Spiteri, L.F.: Extending the scope of library discovery systems via hashtags (2018) 0.01 
    0.007647425 = product of:
  0.034413412 = sum of:
    0.020155499 = weight(_text_:library in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020155499 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
    0.014257914 = weight(_text_:of in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014257914 = score(doc=4798,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 104
  • d 8
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 98
  • el 13
  • m 7
  • b 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications