Search (141 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.05 
    0.04659815 = product of:
  0.077663586 = sum of:
    0.008619961 = weight(_text_:a in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008619961 = score(doc=515,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.054988768 = weight(_text_:63 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054988768 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.2705695 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.014054855 = product of:
      0.02810971 = sum of:
        0.02810971 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02810971 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  2. Hänger, C.: Good tags or bad tags? : Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung (2008) 0.04 
    0.03714329 = product of:
  0.092858225 = sum of:
    0.004876186 = weight(_text_:a in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004876186 = score(doc=2886,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
    0.087982036 = weight(_text_:63 in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.087982036 = score(doc=2886,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.43291122 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Pages
    S.63-71
    Type
    a
  3. Peters, I.; Schumann, L.; Terliesner, J.: Folksonomy-basiertes Information Retrieval unter der Lupe (2012) 0.03 
    0.03250038 = product of:
  0.08125094 = sum of:
    0.004266663 = weight(_text_:a in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004266663 = score(doc=406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
    0.07698428 = weight(_text_:63 in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07698428 = score(doc=406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.37879732 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.4, S.273-280
    Type
    a
  4. Estellés Arolas, E.; González Ladrón-de-Guevar, F.: Uses of explicit and implicit tags in social bookmarking (2012) 0.03 
    0.029320324 = product of:
  0.07330081 = sum of:
    0.0073142797 = weight(_text_:a in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073142797 = score(doc=4984,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
    0.06598653 = weight(_text_:63 in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06598653 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.32468343 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.313-322
    Type
    a
  5. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.03 
    0.027857468 = product of:
  0.06964367 = sum of:
    0.0036571398 = weight(_text_:a in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036571398 = score(doc=2364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.06598653 = weight(_text_:63 in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06598653 = score(doc=2364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.32468343 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Inhalt: What is social software? -- Blogs -- Blogs in libraries : practical applications -- RSS -- Wikis -- Online communities -- Social networking -- Social bookmarking and collaborative filtering -- Tools for synchronous online reference -- The mobile revolution -- Podcasting -- Screencasting and vodcasting -- Gaming -- What will work @ your library -- Keeping up : a primer -- Future trends in social software.
    Signature
    63 BBK 1200
  6. Heck, T.: Analyse von sozialen Informationen für Autorenempfehlungen (2012) 0.03 
    0.027857468 = product of:
  0.06964367 = sum of:
    0.0036571398 = weight(_text_:a in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036571398 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
    0.06598653 = weight(_text_:63 in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06598653 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.32468343 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.4, S.261-272
    Type
    a
  7. Lin, N.; Li, D.; Ding, Y.; He, B.; Qin, Z.; Tang, J.; Li, J.; Dong, T.: ¬The dynamic features of Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube (2012) 0.02 
    0.024981549 = product of:
  0.062453873 = sum of:
    0.0074651055 = weight(_text_:a in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074651055 = score(doc=4970,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
    0.054988768 = weight(_text_:63 in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054988768 = score(doc=4970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.2705695 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article investigates the dynamic features of social tagging vocabularies in Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube from 2003 to 2008. Three algorithms are designed to study the macro- and micro-tag growth as well as the dynamics of taggers' activities, respectively. Moreover, we propose a Tagger Tag Resource Latent Dirichlet Allocation (TTR-LDA) model to explore the evolution of topics emerging from those social vocabularies. Our results show that (a) at the macro level, tag growth in all the three tagging systems obeys power law distribution with exponents lower than 1; at the micro level, the tag growth of popular resources in all three tagging systems follows a similar power law distribution; (b) the exponents of tag growth vary in different evolving stages of resources; (c) the growth of number of taggers associated with different popular resources presents a feature of convergence over time; (d) the active level of taggers has a positive correlation with the macro-tag growth of different tagging systems; and (e) some topics evolve into several subtopics over time while others experience relatively stable stages in which their contents do not change much, and certain groups of taggers continue their interests in them.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.139-162
    Type
    a
  8. Yoon, K.: Conceptual syntagmatic associations in user tagging (2012) 0.02 
    0.024981549 = product of:
  0.062453873 = sum of:
    0.0074651055 = weight(_text_:a in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074651055 = score(doc=240,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
    0.054988768 = weight(_text_:63 in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054988768 = score(doc=240,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.2705695 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study aimed to integrate the linguistic theory of syntagmatic relations and the concept of topic and comment into an empirical analysis of user tagging. User tags on documents in a social bookmarking site reflect a user's views of an information object, which can augment the content description and provide more effective representation of information. The study presents a study of tag analysis to uncover semantic relations among tag terms implicit in user tagging. The objective was to identify the syntagmatic semantic cores of topic and comment in user tags evidenced by the meaning attached to the information object by users. The study focused on syntagmatic relations, which were based on the way in which terms were used within the information content among users. Analysis of descriptive tag terms found three primary categories of concepts: content-topic, content-comment, and context of use. The relations among terms within a group and between the content-topic and content-comment groups were determined by inferring user meaning from the user notes and from the context of the source text. Intergroup relations showed syntagmatic associations between the topic and comment, whereas intragroup relations were more general but were limited in the document context. The findings are discussed with regard to the semantics of concepts and relations in user tagging. An implication of syntagmatic relations to information search suggests that concepts can be combined by a specific association in the context of the actual use of terms.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.923-935
    Type
    a
  9. Lee, D.H.; Schleyer, T.: Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing : a comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers (2012) 0.02 
    0.024433602 = product of:
  0.061084002 = sum of:
    0.006095233 = weight(_text_:a in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006095233 = score(doc=383,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
    0.054988768 = weight(_text_:63 in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054988768 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.2705695 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1747-1757
    Type
    a
  10. Golub, K.; Lykke, M.; Tudhope, D.: Enhancing social tagging with automated keywords from the Dewey Decimal Classification (2014) 0.02 
    0.020268265 = product of:
  0.05067066 = sum of:
    0.006814678 = weight(_text_:a in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006814678 = score(doc=2918,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.043855984 = product of:
      0.08771197 = sum of:
        0.08771197 = weight(_text_:dewey in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08771197 = score(doc=2918,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = queryNorm
            0.4063767 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Type
    a
  11. Komus, A.; Wauch, F.: Wikimanagement : was Unternehmen von Social-Software und Web 2.0 lernen können (2008) 0.02 
    0.018571645 = product of:
  0.046429113 = sum of:
    0.002438093 = weight(_text_:a in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002438093 = score(doc=508,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
    0.043991018 = weight(_text_:63 in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043991018 = score(doc=508,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.21645561 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Signature
    63 TVK 2270
  12. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.010945583 = product of:
  0.027363956 = sum of:
    0.004876186 = weight(_text_:a in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004876186 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
    0.022487769 = product of:
      0.044975538 = sum of:
        0.044975538 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044975538 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Pages
    S.15-22
    Type
    a
  13. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.010676498 = product of:
  0.026691243 = sum of:
    0.006814678 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006814678 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.019876566 = product of:
      0.03975313 = sum of:
        0.03975313 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03975313 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  14. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01 
    0.010284308 = product of:
  0.02571077 = sum of:
    0.0060339733 = weight(_text_:a in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060339733 = score(doc=2889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.019676797 = product of:
      0.039353594 = sum of:
        0.039353594 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039353594 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
    Type
    a
  15. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.01 
    0.009672042 = product of:
  0.024180105 = sum of:
    0.0073142797 = weight(_text_:a in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073142797 = score(doc=3601,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.016865825 = product of:
      0.03373165 = sum of:
        0.03373165 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373165 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  16. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.01 
    0.009280071 = product of:
  0.023200177 = sum of:
    0.0063343523 = weight(_text_:a in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063343523 = score(doc=3602,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.016865825 = product of:
      0.03373165 = sum of:
        0.03373165 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373165 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  17. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01 
    0.009069927 = product of:
  0.022674818 = sum of:
    0.008619961 = weight(_text_:a in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008619961 = score(doc=5492,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
    0.014054855 = product of:
      0.02810971 = sum of:
        0.02810971 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02810971 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  18. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.01 
    0.008347814 = product of:
  0.020869534 = sum of:
    0.006814678 = weight(_text_:a in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006814678 = score(doc=2648,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.014054855 = product of:
      0.02810971 = sum of:
        0.02810971 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02810971 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  19. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.01 
    0.008347814 = product of:
  0.020869534 = sum of:
    0.006814678 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006814678 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
    0.014054855 = product of:
      0.02810971 = sum of:
        0.02810971 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02810971 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    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
    Type
    a
  20. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.01 
    0.008347814 = product of:
  0.020869534 = sum of:
    0.006814678 = weight(_text_:a in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006814678 = score(doc=2891,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494574 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.014054855 = product of:
      0.02810971 = sum of:
        0.02810971 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02810971 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494574 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 104
  • d 36
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 127
  • el 13
  • m 6
  • b 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications