-
Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007)
0.03
0.02891266 = product of:
0.086737975 = sum of:
0.086737975 = sum of:
0.052817974 = weight(_text_:index in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052817974 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03392 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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".
-
Rorissa, A.: ¬A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection (2010)
0.02
0.023290541 = product of:
0.06987162 = sum of:
0.06987162 = product of:
0.13974324 = sum of:
0.13974324 = weight(_text_:index in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13974324 = score(doc=4100,freq=14.0), product of:
0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.63867813 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.
-
Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005)
0.01
0.014192412 = product of:
0.042577233 = sum of:
0.042577233 = weight(_text_:citation in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042577233 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.18133426 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- A number of such utilities are presented here, together with an emergent new class of tools that caters more to the academic communities and that stores not only user-supplied tags, but also structured citation metadata terms wherever it is possible to glean this information from service providers. This provision of rich, structured metadata means that the user is provided with an accurate third-party identification of a document, which could be used to retrieve that document, but is also free to search on user-supplied terms so that documents of interest (or rather, references to documents) can be made discoverable and aggregated with other similar descriptions either recorded by the user or by other users. Matt Biddulph in an XML.com article last year, in which he reviews one of the better known social bookmarking tools, del.icio.us, declares that the "del.icio.us-space has three major axes: users, tags, and URLs". We fully support that assessment but choose to present this deconstruction in a reverse order. This paper thus first recaps a brief history of bookmarks, then discusses the current interest in tagging, moves on to look at certain social issues, and finally considers some of the feature sets offered by the new bookmarking tools. A general review of a number of common social bookmarking tools is presented in the annex. A companion paper describes a case study in more detail: the tool that Nature Publishing Group has made available to the scientific community as an experimental entrée into this field - Connotea; our reasons for endeavouring to provide such a utility; and experiences gained and lessons learned.
-
Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008)
0.01
0.009045334 = product of:
0.027136 = sum of:
0.027136 = product of:
0.054272 = sum of:
0.054272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054272 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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
-
Kipp, M.E.I.; Campbell, D.G.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2010)
0.01
0.008802996 = product of:
0.026408987 = sum of:
0.026408987 = product of:
0.052817974 = sum of:
0.052817974 = weight(_text_:index in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052817974 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval was examined in this pilot study. Many tags are subject related and could work well as index terms or entry vocabulary; however, folksonomies also include relationships that are traditionally not included in controlled vocabularies including affective or time and task related tags and the user name of the tagger. Participants searched a social bookmarking tool, specialising in academic articles (CiteULike), and an online journal database (Pubmed) for articles relevant to a given information request. Screen capture software was used to collect participant actions and a semi-structured interview asked them to describe their search process. Preliminary results showed that participants did use tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, participants also used controlled vocabularies in the journal database to locate useful search terms and links to related articles supplied by Pubmed. Additionally, participants reported using user names of taggers and group names to help select resources by relevance. The inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants. This study suggests that while users value social and subjective factors when searching, they also find utility in objective factors such as subject headings. Most importantly, users are interested in the ability of systems to connect them with related articles whether via subject access or other means.
-
Knautz, K.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in videos (2011)
0.01
0.008802996 = product of:
0.026408987 = sum of:
0.026408987 = product of:
0.052817974 = sum of:
0.052817974 = weight(_text_:index in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052817974 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.01
0.007995021 = product of:
0.023985062 = sum of:
0.023985062 = product of:
0.047970124 = sum of:
0.047970124 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047970124 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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
-
Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008)
0.01
0.007914666 = product of:
0.023743998 = sum of:
0.023743998 = product of:
0.047487997 = sum of:
0.047487997 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047487997 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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
-
Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007)
0.01
0.0070423963 = product of:
0.021127189 = sum of:
0.021127189 = product of:
0.042254377 = sum of:
0.042254377 = weight(_text_:index in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042254377 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
-
Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009)
0.01
0.0067839995 = product of:
0.020351999 = sum of:
0.020351999 = product of:
0.040703997 = sum of:
0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040703997 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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(1/3)
- Date
- 1. 8.2010 12:35:22
-
Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009)
0.01
0.0067839995 = product of:
0.020351999 = sum of:
0.020351999 = product of:
0.040703997 = sum of:
0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040703997 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009)
0.01
0.0067839995 = product of:
0.020351999 = sum of:
0.020351999 = product of:
0.040703997 = sum of:
0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040703997 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011)
0.01
0.0067839995 = product of:
0.020351999 = sum of:
0.020351999 = product of:
0.040703997 = sum of:
0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040703997 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
-
Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008)
0.01
0.005653334 = product of:
0.01696 = sum of:
0.01696 = product of:
0.03392 = sum of:
0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03392 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
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
0.005653334 = product of:
0.01696 = sum of:
0.01696 = product of:
0.03392 = sum of:
0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03392 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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(1/3)
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
-
Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012)
0.01
0.005653334 = product of:
0.01696 = sum of:
0.01696 = product of:
0.03392 = sum of:
0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03392 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 25.12.2012 15:22:37
-
Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016)
0.01
0.005653334 = product of:
0.01696 = sum of:
0.01696 = product of:
0.03392 = sum of:
0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03392 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 21. 4.2016 11:23:22
-
Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019)
0.01
0.005653334 = product of:
0.01696 = sum of:
0.01696 = product of:
0.03392 = sum of:
0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03392 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008)
0.00
0.004522667 = product of:
0.013568 = sum of:
0.013568 = product of:
0.027136 = sum of:
0.027136 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027136 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008)
0.00
0.004522667 = product of:
0.013568 = sum of:
0.013568 = product of:
0.027136 = sum of:
0.027136 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027136 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050071523 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
