Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04696179 = product of:
  0.09392358 = sum of:
    0.09392358 = product of:
      0.18784717 = sum of:
        0.18784717 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18784717 = score(doc=3452,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.640786 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the emergence of Web 2.0, sharing personal content, communicating ideas, and interacting with other online users in Web 2.0 communities have become daily routines for online users. User-generated data from Web 2.0 sites provide rich personal information (e.g., personal preferences and interests) and can be utilized to obtain insight about cyber communities and their social networks. Many studies have focused on leveraging user-generated information to analyze blogs and forums, but few studies have applied this approach to video-sharing Web sites. In this study, we propose a text-based framework for video content classification of online-video sharing Web sites. Different types of user-generated data (e.g., titles, descriptions, and comments) were used as proxies for online videos, and three types of text features (lexical, syntactic, and content-specific features) were extracted. Three feature-based classification techniques (C4.5, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machine) were used to classify videos. To evaluate the proposed framework, user-generated data from candidate videos, which were identified by searching user-given keywords on YouTube, were first collected. Then, a subset of the collected data was randomly selected and manually tagged by users as our experiment data. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to classify online videos based on users' interests with accuracy rates up to 87.2%, and all three types of text features contributed to discriminating videos. Support Vector Machine outperformed C4.5 and Naïve Bayes techniques in our experiments. In addition, our case study further demonstrated that accurate video-classification results are very useful for identifying implicit cyber communities on video-sharing Web sites.

Object

Web 2.0

0.037569433 = product of:
  0.07513887 = sum of:
    0.07513887 = product of:
      0.15027773 = sum of:
        0.15027773 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15027773 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.

0.028177075 = product of:
  0.05635415 = sum of:
    0.05635415 = product of:
      0.1127083 = sum of:
        0.1127083 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1127083 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although Web 2.0 contains many tools with different functionalities, they all share a common social nature. One tool in particular, social bookmarking systems (SBSs), allows users to store and share links to different types of resources, i.e., websites, videos, images. To identify and classify these resources so that they can be retrieved and shared, fragments of text are used. These fragments of text, usually words, are called tags. A tag that is found on the inside of a resource text is referred to as an obvious or explicit tag. There are also nonobvious or implicit tags, which don't appear in the resource text. The purpose of this article is to describe the present situation of the SBSs tool and then to also determine the principal features of and how to use explicit tags. It will be taken into special consideration which HTML tags with explicit tags are used more frequently.

0.028177075 = product of:
  0.05635415 = sum of:
    0.05635415 = product of:
      0.1127083 = sum of:
        0.1127083 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1127083 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.

0.023480896 = product of:
  0.04696179 = sum of:
    0.04696179 = product of:
      0.09392358 = sum of:
        0.09392358 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09392358 = score(doc=4100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.320393 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.023480896 = product of:
  0.04696179 = sum of:
    0.04696179 = product of:
      0.09392358 = sum of:
        0.09392358 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09392358 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.320393 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Web 2.0

0.018784717 = product of:
  0.037569433 = sum of:
    0.037569433 = product of:
      0.07513887 = sum of:
        0.07513887 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07513887 = score(doc=1,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social bookmarking has gained popularity since the advent of Web 2.0. Keywords known as tags are created to annotate web content, and the resulting tag space composed of the tags, the resources, and the users arises as a new platform for web content discovery. Useful and interesting web resources can be located through searching and browsing based on tags, as well as following the user-user connections formed in the social bookmarking community. However, the effectiveness of tag-based search is limited due to the lack of explicitly represented semantics in the tag space. In addition, social connections between users are underused for web content discovery because of the inadequate social functions. In this research, we propose a comprehensive framework to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model. We also studied the structure and properties of various networks emerging from the tag space for the purpose of more efficient web content discovery. The major research approach used in this research is social network analysis (SNA), together with methodologies employed in design science research. The contribution of our research includes: (i) a faceted model to categorize social bookmarking tags; (ii) a relationship ontology to represent the semantics of relationships between tags; (iii) heuristics to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model using analysis of tag-tag co-occurrence networks; (iv) an implemented prototype system as proof-of-concept to validate the feasibility of the reorganization approach; (v) a set of evaluations of the social functions of the current networking features of social bookmarking and a series of recommendations as to how to improve the social functions to facilitate web content discovery.

0.016603502 = product of:
  0.033207003 = sum of:
    0.033207003 = product of:
      0.066414006 = sum of:
        0.066414006 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066414006 = score(doc=4519,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.22655207 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung" Im Oktober 2008 startete an der Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung". Über zwei Jahre hinweg wurde untersucht, welchen Beitrag das Web-2.0-Phänomen Tagging für die inhaltliche Erschließung von bisher nicht erschlossenen und somit der Nutzung kaum zugänglichen Dokumenten leisten kann. Die freie Vergabe von Schlagwörtern in Datenbanken durch die Nutzer selbst hatte sich bereits auf vielen Plattformen als äußerst effizient herausgestellt, insbesondere bei Inhalten, die einer automatischen Erschließung nicht zugänglich sind. So wurden riesige Mengen von Bildern (FlickR), Filmen (YouTube) oder Musik (LastFM) durch das Tagging recherchierbar und identifizierbar gemacht. Die Fragestellung des Projektes war entsprechend, ob und in welcher Qualität sich durch das gleiche Verfahren beispielsweise Dokumente auf Volltextservern oder in elektronischen Zeitschriften erschließen lassen. Für die Beantwortung dieser Frage, die ggf. weitreichende Konsequenzen für die Sacherschließung durch Fachreferenten haben konnte, wurde ein ganzer Komplex von Teilfragen und Teilschritten ermittelt bzw. konzipiert. Im Kern ging es aber in allen Untersuchungsschritten immer um zwei zentrale Dimensionen, nämlich um die "Akzeptanz" und um die "Qualität" des Taggings. Die Akzeptanz des Taggings wurde zunächst bei den Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern der Universität Mannheim evaluiert. Für bestimmte Zeiträume wurden Tagging-Systeme in unterschiedlichen Ausprägungen an die Recherchedienste der Universitätsbibliothek angebunden. Die Akzeptanz der einzelnen Systemausprägungen konnte dann durch die Analyse von Logfiles und durch Datenbankabfragen ausgewertet werden. Für die Qualität der Erschließung wurde auf einen Methodenmix zurückgegriffen, der im Verlauf des Projektes immer wieder an aktuelle Entwicklungen und an die Ergebnisse aus den vorangegangenen Analysen angepaßt wurde. Die Tags wurden hinsichtlich ihres Beitrags zum Information Retrieval mit Verfahren der automatischen Indexierung von Volltexten sowie mit der Erschließung durch Fachreferenten verglichen. Am Schluss sollte eine gut begründete Empfehlung stehen, wie bisher nicht erschlossene Dokumente am besten indexiert werden können: automatisch, mit Tags oder durch eine Kombination von beiden Verfahren.

Object

Web 2.0

0.010272353 = product of:
  0.020544706 = sum of:
    0.020544706 = product of:
      0.04108941 = sum of:
        0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04108941 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a

0.008560294 = product of:
  0.017120589 = sum of:
    0.017120589 = product of:
      0.034241177 = sum of:
        0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034241177 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25.12.2012 15:22:37

0.008560294 = product of:
  0.017120589 = sum of:
    0.017120589 = product of:
      0.034241177 = sum of:
        0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034241177 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 4.2016 11:23:22

0.008560294 = product of:
  0.017120589 = sum of:
    0.017120589 = product of:
      0.034241177 = sum of:
        0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034241177 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22