Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.02 
    0.022969227 = product of:
  0.08039229 = sum of:
    0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067735024 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.01265727 = product of:
      0.02531454 = sum of:
        0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02531454 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  2. Niemann, C.: Intelligenz im Chaos : erste Schritte zur Analyse des Kreativen Potenzials eines Tagging-Systems (2010) 0.00 
    0.0034562727 = product of:
  0.024193907 = sum of:
    0.024193907 = product of:
      0.048387814 = sum of:
        0.048387814 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048387814 = score(doc=4375,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 4375, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Auszeichnung digitaler Medien durch Tagging ist zur festen Größe für das Wissensmanagement im Internet avanciert. Im Kontext des zunehmenden information overload' stehen wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken vor der Aufgabe, die große Flut digital publizierter Artikel und Werke möglichst inhaltlich erschlossen verfügbar zu machen. Die Frage ist, ob durch den Einsatz von Tagging-Systemen die kollaborative Intelligenz der NutzerInnen für die Sacherschließung eingesetzt werden kann, während diese von einer intuitiven und individuellen Wissensorganisation profitieren. Die große Freiheit bei der Vergabe von Deskriptoren durch die NutzerInnen eines Tagging-Systems ist nämlich ein ambivalentes Phänomen: Kundennähe und kreatives Potenzial stehen der großen Menge völlig unkontrollierter Meta-Informationen gegenüber, deren inhaltliche Qualität und Aussagekraft noch unklar ist. Bisherige Forschungsbemühungen konzentrieren sich hauptsächlich auf die automatische Hierarchisierung bzw. Relationierung der Tag-Daten (etwa mittels Ähnlichkeitsalgorithmen) oder auf die Analyse des (Miss-)Erfolgs, den die NutzerInnen bei einer Suchanfrage subjektiv erfahren. Aus der Sicht stark strukturierter Wissensorganisation, wie sie Experten z. B. durch die Anwendung von Klassifikationen realisieren, handelt es sich bei den zunächst unvermittelt nebeneinander stehenden Tags allerdings kurz gesagt um Chaos. Dass in diesem Chaos aber auch Struktur und wertvolles Wissen als Gemeinschaftsprodukt erzeugt werden kann, ist eine der zentralen Thesen dieses Artikels.
  3. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.00 
    0.0021698177 = product of:
  0.015188723 = sum of:
    0.015188723 = product of:
      0.030377446 = sum of:
        0.030377446 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030377446 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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
  4. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.00 
    0.0018081815 = product of:
  0.01265727 = sum of:
    0.01265727 = product of:
      0.02531454 = sum of:
        0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02531454 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  5. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.00 
    0.0018081815 = product of:
  0.01265727 = sum of:
    0.01265727 = product of:
      0.02531454 = sum of:
        0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02531454 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages