Search (99 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.04 
    0.03623499 = product of:
  0.07246998 = sum of:
    0.016197294 = weight(_text_:information in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016197294 = score(doc=2648,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.05627269 = sum of:
      0.02404629 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02404629 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047571484 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.0322264 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0322264 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16658723 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047571484 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.
    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
  2. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.03 
    0.033862952 = product of:
  0.067725904 = sum of:
    0.011453216 = weight(_text_:information in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011453216 = score(doc=515,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.05627269 = sum of:
      0.02404629 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02404629 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047571484 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.0322264 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0322264 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16658723 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047571484 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    A new collaborative approach in information organization and sharing has recently arisen, known as collaborative tagging or social indexing. A key element of collaborative tagging is the concept of collective intelligence (CI), which is a shared intelligence among all participants. This research investigates the phenomenon of social tagging in the context of CI with the aim to serve as a stepping-stone towards the mining of truly valuable social tags for web resources. This study focuses on assessing and evaluating the degree of CI embedded in social tagging over time in terms of two-parameter values, number of participants, and top frequency ranking window. Five different metrics were adopted and utilized for assessing the similarity between ranking lists: overlapList, overlapRank, Footrule, Fagin's measure, and the Inverse Rank measure. The result of this study demonstrates that a substantial degree of CI is most likely to be achieved when somewhere between the first 200 and 400 people have participated in tagging, and that a target degree of CI can be projected by controlling the two factors along with the selection of a similarity metric. The study also tests some experimental conditions for detecting social tags with high CI degree. The results of this study can be applicable to the study of filtering social tags based on CI; filtered social tags may be utilized for the metadata creation of tagged resources and possibly for the retrieval of tagged resources.
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2488-2502
  3. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.03 
    0.027090363 = product of:
  0.054180726 = sum of:
    0.009162573 = weight(_text_:information in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009162573 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.04501815 = sum of:
      0.019237032 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019237032 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047571484 = queryNorm
          0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.025781117 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025781117 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16658723 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047571484 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.
    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
  4. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.02 
    0.023476362 = product of:
  0.046952724 = sum of:
    0.022906432 = weight(_text_:information in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022906432 = score(doc=2931,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.02404629 = product of:
      0.04809258 = sum of:
        0.04809258 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04809258 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Die Entstehung von Social Software ermöglicht es Nutzern, in großem Umfang im Netz zu publizieren. Bisher liegen aber nur wenige empirische Befunde zu funktionalen Eigenschaften sowie Qualitätsaspekten von Nutzerbeiträgen im Kontext von Informationsmanagement und Information Retrieval vor. Diese Arbeit diskutiert grundlegende Partizipationsformen, präsentiert empirische Studien über Social Tagging, Blogbeiträge sowie Relevanzbeurteilungen und entwickelt Design und Implementierung einer "sozialen" Informationsarchitektur für ein partizipatives Onlinehilfesystem.
    Content
    The Web of User Contribution - Foundations and Principles of the Social Web - Social Tagging - Rating and Filtering of Digital Resources Empirical Analysisof User Contributions - The Functional and Linguistic Structure of Tags - A Comparative Analysis of Tags for Different Digital Resource Types - Exploring Relevance Assessments in Social IR Systems - Exploring User Contribution Within a Higher Education Scenario - Summary of Empirical Results and Implications for Designing Social Information Systems User Contribution for a Participative Information System - Social Information Architecture for an Online Help System
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
  5. Peters, I.; Schumann, L.; Terliesner, J.: Folksonomy-basiertes Information Retrieval unter der Lupe (2012) 0.02 
    0.022594541 = product of:
  0.045189083 = sum of:
    0.016034503 = weight(_text_:information in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016034503 = score(doc=406,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
    0.029154578 = product of:
      0.058309156 = sum of:
        0.058309156 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058309156 = score(doc=406,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Social Tagging ist eine weitverbreitete Methode, um nutzergenerierte Inhalte in Webdiensten zu indexieren. Dieser Artikel fasst die aktuelle Forschung zu Folksonomies und Effektivität von Tags in Retrievalsystemen zusammen. Es wurde ein TREC-ähnlicher Retrievaltest mit Tags und Ressourcen aus dem Social Bookmarking-Dienst delicious durchgeführt, welcher in Recall- und Precisionwerten für ausschließlich Tag-basierte Suchen resultierte. Außerdem wurden Tags in verschiedenen Stufen bereinigt und auf ihre Retrieval-Effektivität getestet. Testergebnisse zeigen, dass Retrieval in Folksonomies am besten mit kurzen Anfragen funktioniert. Hierbei sind die Recallwerte hoch, die Precisionwerte jedoch eher niedrig. Die Suchfunktion "power tags only" liefert verbesserte Precisionwerte.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.4, S.273-280
  6. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.02 
    0.020942802 = product of:
  0.041885603 = sum of:
    0.018325146 = weight(_text_:information in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018325146 = score(doc=4203,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.023560457 = product of:
      0.047120914 = sum of:
        0.047120914 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047120914 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.
    Footnote
    Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval
    Series
    Knowledge and information : studies in information science
    Subject
    Information Retrieval
  7. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.02 
    0.017073907 = product of:
  0.034147814 = sum of:
    0.01374386 = weight(_text_:information in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01374386 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
    0.020403953 = product of:
      0.040807907 = sum of:
        0.040807907 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040807907 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  8. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.02 
    0.01653985 = product of:
  0.0330797 = sum of:
    0.01374386 = weight(_text_:information in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01374386 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.019335838 = product of:
      0.038671676 = sum of:
        0.038671676 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038671676 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16658723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  9. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.02 
    0.016155247 = product of:
  0.032310493 = sum of:
    0.016197294 = weight(_text_:information in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016197294 = score(doc=2891,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.0161132 = product of:
      0.0322264 = sum of:
        0.0322264 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0322264 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16658723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = 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(2/4)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1089-1104
    Theme
    Information Gateway
  10. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.02 
    0.016097434 = product of:
  0.032194868 = sum of:
    0.012957836 = weight(_text_:information in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012957836 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.019237032 = product of:
      0.038474064 = sum of:
        0.038474064 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474064 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  11. Yi, K.: ¬A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags (2010) 0.02 
    0.015930349 = product of:
  0.031860698 = sum of:
    0.019837553 = weight(_text_:information in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019837553 = score(doc=3707,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
    0.012023145 = product of:
      0.02404629 = sum of:
        0.02404629 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02404629 = score(doc=3707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Social tagging or collaborative tagging has become a new trend in the organization, management, and discovery of digital information. The rapid growth of shared information mostly controlled by social tags poses a new challenge for social tag-based information organization and retrieval. A plausible approach for this challenge is linking social tags to a controlled vocabulary. As an introductory step for this approach, this study investigates ways of predicting relevant subject headings for resources from social tags assigned to the resources. The prediction of subject headings was measured by five different similarity measures: tf-idf, cosine-based similarity (CoS), Jaccard similarity (or Jaccard coefficient; JS), Mutual information (MI), and information radius (IRad). Their results were compared to those by professionals. The results show that a CoS measure based on top five social tags was most effective. Inclusions of more social tags only aggravate the performance. The performance of JS is comparable to the performance of CoS while tf-idf is comparable with up to 70% less than the best performance. MI and IRad have inferior performance compared to the other methods. This study demonstrates the application of the similarity measuring techniques to the prediction of correct Library of Congress subject headings.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1658-1672
  12. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.02 
    0.015443075 = product of:
  0.03088615 = sum of:
    0.008098647 = weight(_text_:information in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008098647 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.022787504 = product of:
      0.045575008 = sum of:
        0.045575008 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045575008 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16658723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
    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
  13. Golub, K.; Lykke, M.; Tudhope, D.: Enhancing social tagging with automated keywords from the Dewey Decimal Classification (2014) 0.01 
    0.014461673 = product of:
  0.028923346 = sum of:
    0.008098647 = weight(_text_:information in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008098647 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.020824699 = product of:
      0.041649397 = sum of:
        0.041649397 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041649397 = score(doc=2918,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of applying the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as an established knowledge organization system (KOS) for enhancing social tagging, with the ultimate purpose of improving subject indexing and information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Over 11.000 Intute metadata records in politics were used. Totally, 28 politics students were each given four tasks, in which a total of 60 resources were tagged in two different configurations, one with uncontrolled social tags only and another with uncontrolled social tags as well as suggestions from a controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary was DDC comprising also mappings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Findings - The results demonstrate the importance of controlled vocabulary suggestions for indexing and retrieval: to help produce ideas of which tags to use, to make it easier to find focus for the tagging, to ensure consistency and to increase the number of access points in retrieval. The value and usefulness of the suggestions proved to be dependent on the quality of the suggestions, both as to conceptual relevance to the user and as to appropriateness of the terminology. Originality/value - No research has investigated the enhancement of social tagging with suggestions from the DDC, an established KOS, in a user trial, comparing social tagging only and social tagging enhanced with the suggestions. This paper is a final reflection on all aspects of the study.
  14. Sun, A.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Nguyen, K.T.N.; Bai, G.: Tag-based social image retrieval : an empirical evaluation (2011) 0.01 
    0.014228255 = product of:
  0.02845651 = sum of:
    0.011453216 = weight(_text_:information in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011453216 = score(doc=4938,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
    0.017003294 = product of:
      0.03400659 = sum of:
        0.03400659 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400659 = score(doc=4938,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Tags associated with social images are valuable information source for superior image search and retrieval experiences. Although various heuristics are valuable to boost tag-based search for images, there is a lack of general framework to study the impact of these heuristics. Specifically, the task of ranking images matching a given tag query based on their associated tags in descending order of relevance has not been well studied. In this article, we take the first step to propose a generic, flexible, and extensible framework for this task and exploit it for a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of various methods for ranking images. To this end, we identified five orthogonal dimensions to quantify the matching score between a tagged image and a tag query. These five dimensions are: (i) tag relatedness to measure the degree of effectiveness of a tag describing the tagged image; (ii) tag discrimination to quantify the degree of discrimination of a tag with respect to the entire tagged image collection; (iii) tag length normalization analogous to document length normalization in web search; (iv) tag-query matching model for the matching score computation between an image tag and a query tag; and (v) query model for tag query rewriting. For each dimension, we identify a few implementations and evaluate their impact on NUS-WIDE dataset, the largest human-annotated dataset consisting of more than 269K tagged images from Flickr. We evaluated 81 single-tag queries and 443 multi-tag queries over 288 search methods and systematically compare their performances using standard metrics including Precision at top-K, Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2364-2381
  15. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01 
    0.014068172 = product of:
  0.05627269 = sum of:
    0.05627269 = sum of:
      0.02404629 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02404629 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047571484 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.0322264 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0322264 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16658723 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047571484 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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".
  16. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01 
    0.013783207 = product of:
  0.027566414 = sum of:
    0.011453216 = weight(_text_:information in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011453216 = score(doc=5492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
    0.0161132 = product of:
      0.0322264 = sum of:
        0.0322264 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0322264 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16658723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose Online knowledge communities make great contributions to global knowledge sharing and innovation. Resource tagging approaches have been widely adopted in such communities to describe, annotate and organize knowledge resources mainly through users' participation. However, it is unclear what causes the adoption of a particular resource tagging approach. The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that drive users to use a hybrid social tagging approach. Design/methodology/approach Technology acceptance model and social cognitive theory are adopted to support an integrated model proposed in this paper. Zhihu, one of the most popular online knowledge communities in China, is taken as the survey context. A survey was conducted with a questionnaire and collected data were analyzed through structural equation model. Findings A new hybrid social resource tagging approach was refined and described. The empirical results revealed that self-efficacy, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use exert positive effect on users' attitude. Moreover, social influence, PU and attitude impact significantly on users' intention to use a hybrid social resource tagging approach. Originality/value Theoretically, this study enriches the type of resource tagging approaches and recognizes factors influencing user adoption to use it. Regarding the practical parts, the results provide online information system providers and designers with referential strategies to improve the performance of the current tagging approaches and promote them.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.2, S.155-175
  17. Kipp, M.E.I.; Campbell, D.G.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2010) 0.01 
    0.013025207 = product of:
  0.026050415 = sum of:
    0.01402727 = weight(_text_:information in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01402727 = score(doc=4064,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
    0.012023145 = product of:
      0.02404629 = sum of:
        0.02404629 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02404629 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  18. Seeman, D.: Naming names : the ethics of identification in digital library metadata (2012) 0.01 
    0.013025207 = product of:
  0.026050415 = sum of:
    0.01402727 = weight(_text_:information in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01402727 = score(doc=416,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
    0.012023145 = product of:
      0.02404629 = sum of:
        0.02404629 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02404629 = score(doc=416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In many digital libraries, visual objects are published and metadata attached to allow for search and retrieval. For visual objects in which people appear, names are often added to the metadata so that digital library users can search for people appearing in these objects. Although this seems straightforward, there are ethical implications of adding names to metadata for visual objects. This paper explores the impact of this action and discusses relevant ethical issues it raises. It asserts that an individual's right to privacy and control over personal information must be weighed against the benefit of the object to society and the professional ethic to authentically represent a resource through its metadata. Context and an understanding of the major ethical issues will inform the practical decision of whether to keep objects online and add metadata to them, but items should generally be published unless there are clear ethical violations or a community relationship is in jeopardy.
    Content
    Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_c.pdf.
  19. Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013) 0.01 
    0.013025207 = product of:
  0.026050415 = sum of:
    0.01402727 = weight(_text_:information in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01402727 = score(doc=1091,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    0.012023145 = product of:
      0.02404629 = sum of:
        0.02404629 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02404629 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.2045-2057
  20. Knautz, K.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in videos (2011) 0.01 
    0.012550971 = product of:
  0.025101941 = sum of:
    0.008098647 = weight(_text_:information in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008098647 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08351069 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047571484 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
    0.017003294 = product of:
      0.03400659 = sum of:
        0.03400659 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400659 = score(doc=295,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1438997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047571484 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 81
  • d 18

Types

  • a 86
  • el 7
  • m 7
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications