Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.04 
    0.043340962 = product of:
  0.13002288 = sum of:
    0.13002288 = sum of:
      0.10018075 = weight(_text_:digital in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10018075 = score(doc=3387,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03670994 = queryNorm
          0.6918357 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.029842136 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029842136 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03670994 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
    Source
    Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel
  2. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.02 
    0.018807475 = product of:
  0.05642242 = sum of:
    0.05642242 = sum of:
      0.03155397 = weight(_text_:digital in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03155397 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03670994 = queryNorm
          0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.02486845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02486845 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03670994 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  3. Spiteri, L.F.: Extending the scope of library discovery systems via hashtags (2018) 0.01 
    0.011899749 = product of:
  0.035699245 = sum of:
    0.035699245 = product of:
      0.07139849 = sum of:
        0.07139849 = weight(_text_:digital in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07139849 = score(doc=4798,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.493069 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  4. Bundza, M.: ¬The choice is yours! : researchers assign subject metadata to their own materials in institutional repositories (2014) 0.01 
    0.0104122795 = product of:
  0.031236839 = sum of:
    0.031236839 = product of:
      0.062473677 = sum of:
        0.062473677 = weight(_text_:digital in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062473677 = score(doc=1968,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.43143538 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The Digital Commons platform for institutional repositories provides a three-tiered taxonomy of academic disciplines for each item submitted to the repository. Since faculty and departmental administrators across campuses are encouraged to submit materials to the institutional repository themselves, they must also assign disciplines or subject categories for their own work. The expandable drop-down menu of about 1,000 categories is easy to use, and facilitates the growth of the institutional repository and access to the materials through the Internet.
    Footnote
    Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.
  5. Seeman, D.: Naming names : the ethics of identification in digital library metadata (2012) 0.01 
    0.009108848 = product of:
  0.027326543 = sum of:
    0.027326543 = product of:
      0.054653086 = sum of:
        0.054653086 = weight(_text_:digital in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054653086 = score(doc=416,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In many digital libraries, visual objects are published and metadata attached to allow for search and retrieval. For visual objects in which people appear, names are often added to the metadata so that digital library users can search for people appearing in these objects. Although this seems straightforward, there are ethical implications of adding names to metadata for visual objects. This paper explores the impact of this action and discusses relevant ethical issues it raises. It asserts that an individual's right to privacy and control over personal information must be weighed against the benefit of the object to society and the professional ethic to authentically represent a resource through its metadata. Context and an understanding of the major ethical issues will inform the practical decision of whether to keep objects online and add metadata to them, but items should generally be published unless there are clear ethical violations or a community relationship is in jeopardy.
  6. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.01 
    0.0074373423 = product of:
  0.022312026 = sum of:
    0.022312026 = product of:
      0.044624053 = sum of:
        0.044624053 = weight(_text_:digital in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044624053 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    The Web of User Contribution - Foundations and Principles of the Social Web - Social Tagging - Rating and Filtering of Digital Resources Empirical Analysisof User Contributions - The Functional and Linguistic Structure of Tags - A Comparative Analysis of Tags for Different Digital Resource Types - Exploring Relevance Assessments in Social IR Systems - Exploring User Contribution Within a Higher Education Scenario - Summary of Empirical Results and Implications for Designing Social Information Systems User Contribution for a Participative Information System - Social Information Architecture for an Online Help System
  7. Abbas, J.: In the margins : reflections on scribbles (2007) 0.01 
    0.007362594 = product of:
  0.02208778 = sum of:
    0.02208778 = product of:
      0.04417556 = sum of:
        0.04417556 = weight(_text_:digital in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04417556 = score(doc=659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Marginalia or 'scribbling in the margins' is a means for readers to add a more in-depth level of granularity and subject representation to digital documents such as those present in social sharing environments like Flickr and del.icio.us. Social classification and social sharing sites development of user-defined descriptors or tags is discussed in the context of knowledge organization. With this position paper I present a rationale for the use of the resulting folksonomies and tag clouds being developed in these social sharing communities as a rich source of information about our users and their natural organization processes. The knowledge organization community needs to critically examine our understandings of these emerging classificatory schema and determine how best to adapt, augment, revitalize existing knowledge organization structures.
  8. Golub, K.; Moon, J.; Nielsen, M.L.; Tudhope, D.: EnTag: Enhanced Tagging for Discovery (2008) 0.01 
    0.007362594 = product of:
  0.02208778 = sum of:
    0.02208778 = product of:
      0.04417556 = sum of:
        0.04417556 = weight(_text_:digital in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04417556 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.
  9. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.01 
    0.007362594 = product of:
  0.02208778 = sum of:
    0.02208778 = product of:
      0.04417556 = sum of:
        0.04417556 = weight(_text_:digital in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04417556 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
  10. Stuart, E.: Flickr: organizing and tagging images online (2019) 0.01 
    0.007362594 = product of:
  0.02208778 = sum of:
    0.02208778 = product of:
      0.04417556 = sum of:
        0.04417556 = weight(_text_:digital in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04417556 = score(doc=5233,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Flickr was launched when digital cameras first began to outsell analog cameras, and people were drawn to the site for the opportunities it offered them to store, organize, and share their images, as well as for the connections that could be made with other like-minded people. This article examines the links between Flickr's success and how images are organized within the site, as well as the types of people and organizations that use Flickr and their motivations for doing so. Factors that have contributed to Flickr's demise in popularity will be explored, and the article finishes with some suggestions for how Flickr could develop in the future, along with some conclusions for image organization.
  11. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.0066315862 = product of:
  0.019894758 = sum of:
    0.019894758 = product of:
      0.039789516 = sum of:
        0.039789516 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039789516 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Pages
    S.15-22
  12. Aparecida Moura, M.; Assis, J.: Social networks, indexing languages and organization of knowledge : a semiotic approach 0.01 
    0.0063107945 = product of:
  0.018932384 = sum of:
    0.018932384 = product of:
      0.037864767 = sum of:
        0.037864767 = weight(_text_:digital in 3544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037864767 = score(doc=3544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This study will present a theoretical discussion about the semiotics categories and its application in the information organization. An experiment about the performance of the Gemet and Eurovoc thesauri with the subject "sustainable development" comparing with the folksonomies and distributed classification systems available on the online repositories of individual or collective information is presented. The new configuration of warrant (literary, structural and of usage) in the process of constructing indexing languages in digital environments will also be discussed. It suggested in the methodological terms that the new theoretical and informational mediations have to be incorporated in the construction process of indexing languages.
  13. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.01 
    0.0063107945 = product of:
  0.018932384 = sum of:
    0.018932384 = product of:
      0.037864767 = sum of:
        0.037864767 = weight(_text_:digital in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037864767 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
  14. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.01 
    0.0063107945 = product of:
  0.018932384 = sum of:
    0.018932384 = product of:
      0.037864767 = sum of:
        0.037864767 = weight(_text_:digital in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037864767 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  15. Huang, S.-L.; Lin, S.-C.; Chan, Y.-C.: Investigating effectiveness and user acceptance of semantic social tagging for knowledge sharing (2012) 0.01 
    0.0063107945 = product of:
  0.018932384 = sum of:
    0.018932384 = product of:
      0.037864767 = sum of:
        0.037864767 = weight(_text_:digital in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037864767 = score(doc=2732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  16. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.0058615496 = product of:
  0.017584648 = sum of:
    0.017584648 = product of:
      0.035169296 = sum of:
        0.035169296 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035169296 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  17. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01 
    0.0058026384 = product of:
  0.017407915 = sum of:
    0.017407915 = product of:
      0.03481583 = sum of:
        0.03481583 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03481583 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  18. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.01 
    0.005258995 = product of:
  0.015776984 = sum of:
    0.015776984 = product of:
      0.03155397 = sum of:
        0.03155397 = weight(_text_:digital in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03155397 = score(doc=2813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  19. Yi, K.: ¬A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags (2010) 0.01 
    0.005258995 = product of:
  0.015776984 = sum of:
    0.015776984 = product of:
      0.03155397 = sum of:
        0.03155397 = weight(_text_:digital in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03155397 = score(doc=3707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  20. Matthews, B.; Jones, C.; Puzon, B.; Moon, J.; Tudhope, D.; Golub, K.; Nielsen, M.L.: ¬An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system (2010) 0.01 
    0.005258995 = product of:
  0.015776984 = sum of:
    0.015776984 = product of:
      0.03155397 = sum of:
        0.03155397 = weight(_text_:digital in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03155397 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Traditional subject indexing and classification are considered infeasible in many digital collections. This paper seeks to investigate ways of enhancing social tagging via knowledge organization systems, with a view to improving the quality of tags for increased information discovery and retrieval performance. Design/methodology/approach - Enhanced tagging interfaces were developed for exemplar online repositories, and trials were undertaken with author and reader groups to evaluate the effectiveness of tagging augmented with control vocabulary for subject indexing of papers in online repositories. Findings - The results showed that using a knowledge organisation system to augment tagging does appear to increase the effectiveness of non-specialist users (that is, without information science training) in subject indexing. Research limitations/implications - While limited by the size and scope of the trials undertaken, these results do point to the usefulness of a mixed approach in supporting the subject indexing of online resources. Originality/value - The value of this work is as a guide to future developments in the practical support for resource indexing in online repositories.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 33
  • d 4

Types

  • a 32
  • el 6
  • b 2
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications