Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Heck, T.: Analyse von sozialen Informationen für Autorenempfehlungen (2012) 0.03 
    0.028156668 = product of:
  0.11262667 = sum of:
    0.11262667 = weight(_text_:soziale in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11262667 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.40501565 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Kollaborationen mit Kollegen sind für fast alle Wissenschaftler bedeutend. Forscher bauen sich im Laufe ihrer Karriere ein soziales Netzwerk mit Kontakten zu anderen Wissenschaftlern mit ähnlichen Interessen und Forschungsschwerpunkten auf. Ein Empfehlungssystem könnte einer Person dabei helfen, geeignete Kollegen und neue Kooperationspartner zu finden. Für einen Wissenschaftler ist seine Reputation sehr wichtig, die mit Zitations- und Referenzdaten analysiert werden kann. Solche Daten können dazu dienen, Cluster mit ähnlichen Forschern zu ermitteln, die wiederum für ein Empfehlungssystem verwendet werden können. Darüber hinaus enthalten neue Dienste des sozialen Webs, wie Social-Bookmarking-Systeme, weitere Informationen über Wissenschaftler, auf Basis derer Personenvorschläge gemacht werden können. Im Folgenden wird ein Versuch beschrieben, verschiedene soziale Informationen über Wissenschaftler zu nutzen, um diesen relevante Kooperationspartner vorzuschlagen.
  2. Frohner, H.: Social Tagging : Grundlagen, Anwendungen, Auswirkungen auf Wissensorganisation und soziale Strukturen der User (2010) 0.02 
    0.023463892 = product of:
  0.09385557 = sum of:
    0.09385557 = weight(_text_:soziale in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09385557 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.33751306 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  3. Heuwing, B.: Erfahrungen an der Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim : Social Tagging in Bibliotheken (2010) 0.01 
    0.0059357807 = product of:
  0.023743123 = sum of:
    0.023743123 = product of:
      0.047486246 = sum of:
        0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 4013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486246 = score(doc=4013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Der Einsatz von Social Software in Bibliotheken und die damit angestrebte Erweiterung und Öffnung ihrer Angebote hat in den letzten Jahren viel Aufmerksamkeit auf sich gezogen. Für die Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim wurde prototypisch ein Social Tagging Dienst umgesetzt und im Praxiseinsatz evaluiert (vgl. Heuwing 2008). Nutzer hatten dabei die Möglichkeit, für die im Online-Katalog vorhandenen Ressourcen selbst gewählte Schlagworte vergeben zu können. Das Angebot wurde von der Gruppe von Testnutzern positiv angenommen und auf vielfältige Weise eingesetzt. Eine Nutzerbefragung zeigt, dass die Motivation für die Nutzung vor allem im Austausch unter den Studierenden lag, während die Verwaltung persönlicher Informationsressourcen nur einer kleineren Gruppe wichtig war. Die Ergebnisse des Projektes verdeutlichen das Potential von Social Tagging an Universitäten und zeigen Möglichkeiten für die Integration mit lokalen Anwendungen und übergreifenden Diensten.
  4. Kipp, M.E.I.; Campbell, D.G.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2010) 0.00 
    0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  5. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.00 
    0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  6. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.00 
    0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  7. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.00 
    0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  8. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.00 
    0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

Types

Classifications