-
Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009)
0.06
0.06414506 = product of:
0.09621758 = sum of:
0.031852208 = weight(_text_:im in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031852208 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.22084267 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
0.06436537 = product of:
0.09654805 = sum of:
0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04496643 = score(doc=2931,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
0.051581617 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051581617 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009)
0.03
0.032036766 = product of:
0.04805515 = sum of:
0.031208664 = weight(_text_:im in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031208664 = score(doc=4203,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.21638076 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
0.016846485 = product of:
0.050539456 = sum of:
0.050539456 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050539456 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Subject
- Information Retrieval
-
Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008)
0.03
0.025885364 = product of:
0.07765609 = sum of:
0.07765609 = sum of:
0.029371947 = weight(_text_:online in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029371947 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
0.020632647 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020632647 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.027651496 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027651496 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019)
0.02
0.019219361 = product of:
0.057658084 = sum of:
0.057658084 = product of:
0.08648712 = sum of:
0.051922753 = weight(_text_:online in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051922753 = score(doc=5492,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009)
0.02
0.019007815 = product of:
0.057023443 = sum of:
0.057023443 = product of:
0.08553516 = sum of:
0.04405792 = weight(_text_:online in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04405792 = score(doc=3602,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.284522 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04147724 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Matthews, B.; Jones, C.; Puzon, B.; Moon, J.; Tudhope, D.; Golub, K.; Nielsen, M.L.: ¬An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system (2010)
0.02
0.017269682 = product of:
0.051809043 = sum of:
0.051809043 = product of:
0.077713564 = sum of:
0.051922753 = weight(_text_:online in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051922753 = score(doc=4171,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4171, 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=4171)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Traditional subject indexing and classification are considered infeasible in many digital collections. This paper seeks to investigate ways of enhancing social tagging via knowledge organization systems, with a view to improving the quality of tags for increased information discovery and retrieval performance. Design/methodology/approach - Enhanced tagging interfaces were developed for exemplar online repositories, and trials were undertaken with author and reader groups to evaluate the effectiveness of tagging augmented with control vocabulary for subject indexing of papers in online repositories. Findings - The results showed that using a knowledge organisation system to augment tagging does appear to increase the effectiveness of non-specialist users (that is, without information science training) in subject indexing. Research limitations/implications - While limited by the size and scope of the trials undertaken, these results do point to the usefulness of a mixed approach in supporting the subject indexing of online resources. Originality/value - The value of this work is as a guide to future developments in the practical support for resource indexing in online repositories.
-
Ransom, N.; Rafferty, P.: Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval (2011)
0.01
0.013874464 = product of:
0.04162339 = sum of:
0.04162339 = product of:
0.062435087 = sum of:
0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025961377 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03647371 = score(doc=296,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.
-
Kipp, M.E.I.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2008)
0.01
0.013800584 = product of:
0.04140175 = sum of:
0.04140175 = product of:
0.062102623 = sum of:
0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031153653 = score(doc=2278,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03094897 = score(doc=2278,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Content
- This study examines the question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval. Participants were asked to search a social bookmarking tool specialising in academic articles (CiteULike) and an online journal database (Pubmed) in order to determine if users found tags were useful in their search process. The actions of each participants were captured using screen capture software and they were asked to describe their search process. The preliminary study showed that users did indeed make use of tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, users also made use of controlled vocabularies in the journal database.
-
Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016)
0.01
0.013450166 = product of:
0.040350497 = sum of:
0.040350497 = product of:
0.060525745 = sum of:
0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025961377 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 21. 4.2016 11:23:22
-
Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007)
0.01
0.013412262 = product of:
0.040236786 = sum of:
0.040236786 = product of:
0.06035518 = sum of:
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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".
-
Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008)
0.01
0.013412262 = product of:
0.040236786 = sum of:
0.040236786 = product of:
0.06035518 = sum of:
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012)
0.01
0.013412262 = product of:
0.040236786 = sum of:
0.040236786 = product of:
0.06035518 = sum of:
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008)
0.01
0.012671877 = product of:
0.03801563 = sum of:
0.03801563 = product of:
0.057023443 = sum of:
0.029371947 = weight(_text_:online in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029371947 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
0.027651496 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027651496 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
- 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
-
Kipp, M.E.I.; Campbell, D.G.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2010)
0.01
0.011500487 = product of:
0.03450146 = sum of:
0.03450146 = product of:
0.051752187 = sum of:
0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025961377 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Seeman, D.: Naming names : the ethics of identification in digital library metadata (2012)
0.01
0.011500487 = product of:
0.03450146 = sum of:
0.03450146 = product of:
0.051752187 = sum of:
0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025961377 = score(doc=416,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=416,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007)
0.01
0.0077401884 = product of:
0.023220565 = sum of:
0.023220565 = product of:
0.06966169 = sum of:
0.06966169 = weight(_text_:online in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06966169 = score(doc=2364,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.4498688 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
- LCSH
- Online social networks
- Subject
- Online social networks
-
Huang, C.; Fu, T.; Chen, H.: Text-based video content classification for online video-sharing sites (2010)
0.01
0.0070657926 = product of:
0.021197377 = sum of:
0.021197377 = product of:
0.06359213 = sum of:
0.06359213 = weight(_text_:online in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06359213 = score(doc=3452,freq=12.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.41067213 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- With the emergence of Web 2.0, sharing personal content, communicating ideas, and interacting with other online users in Web 2.0 communities have become daily routines for online users. User-generated data from Web 2.0 sites provide rich personal information (e.g., personal preferences and interests) and can be utilized to obtain insight about cyber communities and their social networks. Many studies have focused on leveraging user-generated information to analyze blogs and forums, but few studies have applied this approach to video-sharing Web sites. In this study, we propose a text-based framework for video content classification of online-video sharing Web sites. Different types of user-generated data (e.g., titles, descriptions, and comments) were used as proxies for online videos, and three types of text features (lexical, syntactic, and content-specific features) were extracted. Three feature-based classification techniques (C4.5, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machine) were used to classify videos. To evaluate the proposed framework, user-generated data from candidate videos, which were identified by searching user-given keywords on YouTube, were first collected. Then, a subset of the collected data was randomly selected and manually tagged by users as our experiment data. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to classify online videos based on users' interests with accuracy rates up to 87.2%, and all three types of text features contributed to discriminating videos. Support Vector Machine outperformed C4.5 and Naïve Bayes techniques in our experiments. In addition, our case study further demonstrated that accurate video-classification results are very useful for identifying implicit cyber communities on video-sharing Web sites.
-
Konkova, E.; Göker, A.; Butterworth, R.; MacFarlane, A.: Social tagging: exploring the image, the tags, and the game (2014)
0.01
0.006877549 = product of:
0.020632647 = sum of:
0.020632647 = product of:
0.06189794 = sum of:
0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06189794 = score(doc=1370,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Large image collections on the Web need to be organized for effective retrieval. Metadata has a key role in image retrieval but rely on professionally assigned tags which is not a viable option. Current content-based image retrieval systems have not demonstrated sufficient utility on large-scale image sources on the web, and are usually used as a supplement to existing text-based image retrieval systems. We present two social tagging alternatives in the form of photo-sharing networks and image labeling games. Here we analyze these applications to evaluate their usefulness from the semantic point of view, investigating the management of social tagging for indexing. The findings of the study have shown that social tagging can generate a sizeable number of tags that can be classified as in terpretive for an image, and that tagging behaviour has a manageable and adjustable nature depending on tagging guidelines.
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.01
0.0054312674 = product of:
0.016293801 = sum of:
0.016293801 = product of:
0.0488814 = sum of:
0.0488814 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0488814 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009)
0.00
0.00499627 = product of:
0.01498881 = sum of:
0.01498881 = product of:
0.04496643 = sum of:
0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04496643 = score(doc=2813,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.
