Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.038285337 = product of:
  0.076570675 = sum of:
    0.076570675 = sum of:
      0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02656075 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05220068 = queryNorm
          0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
      0.05000992 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05000992 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05220068 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous studies of user-generated vocabularies (e.g., Golder & Huberman, 2006; Munk & Mork, 2007b; Yoon, 2009) have proposed that a primary source of tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of tags at the basic level of abstraction. However, an investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies did not support this notion. This study analyzed approximately 8000 tags generated by 40 subjects. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned to 36 online resources representing four content categories (TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) and three resource genres (news article, blog, ecommerce) did not find statistically significant preferences in the assignment of tags at the superordinate, subordinate or basic levels of abstraction. Within the framework of Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness , observed variations in the preferred level of abstraction are both natural and phenomenological in that perception and understanding -- and thus the meaning of "things" -- arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects. Operationalization of superordinate, subordinate and basic levels of abstraction using Heidegger's notion of handiness may be able to account for differences in the everyday experiences and activities of taggers, thereby leading to a better understanding of user-generated tagging vocabularies.

Date

5. 9.2014 16:22:27

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.012376824 = product of:
  0.024753649 = sum of:
    0.024753649 = product of:
      0.049507298 = sum of:
        0.049507298 = weight(_text_:22 in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049507298 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 119, 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=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.16-22

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.009390644 = product of:
  0.018781288 = sum of:
    0.018781288 = product of:
      0.037562575 = sum of:
        0.037562575 = weight(_text_:online in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037562575 = score(doc=2423,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=2108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies (e.g., Yoon 2009) suggest that tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of basic level category terms. This study investigated whether differences in the superordinate, subordinate or basic level of abstraction were influenced by resource content. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned by 40 participants to 36 online resources representing four content categories (i.e., TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) found significant differences in the frequency of occurrence of subordinate and basic level tags assigned to resources in the FRUIT content category and of superordinate and basic level tags assigned to resources in the CLOTHING content category. This study suggests that variation in the level of abstraction of content related tags is natural in that perception and understanding arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects.

0.007072471 = product of:
  0.014144942 = sum of:
    0.014144942 = product of:
      0.028289884 = sum of:
        0.028289884 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028289884 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, 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=1450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)