Search (61 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.05 
    0.052079234 = product of:
  0.08679872 = sum of:
    0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032278713 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.03588033 = weight(_text_:index in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03588033 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
    Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?
  2. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.04 
    0.043949433 = product of:
  0.07324905 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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
  3. Huang, S.-L.; Lin, S.-C.; Chan, Y.-C.: Investigating effectiveness and user acceptance of semantic social tagging for knowledge sharing (2012) 0.04 
    0.038738146 = product of:
  0.096845366 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=2732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
    0.048427295 = weight(_text_:system in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048427295 = score(doc=2732,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Social tagging systems enable users to assign arbitrary tags to various digital resources. However, they face vague-meaning problems when users retrieve or present resources with the keyword-based tags. In order to solve these problems, this study takes advantage of Semantic Web technology and the topological characteristics of knowledge maps to develop a system that comprises a semantic tagging mechanism and triple-pattern and visual searching mechanisms. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and user acceptance of these mechanisms in a knowledge sharing context. The results show that the semantic social tagging system is more effective than a keyword-based system. The visualized knowledge map helps users capture an overview of the knowledge domain, reduce cognitive effort for the search, and obtain more enjoyment. Traditional keyword tagging with a keyword search still has the advantage of ease of use and the users had higher intention to use it. This study also proposes directions for future development of semantic social tagging systems.
  4. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.03 
    0.03157078 = product of:
  0.07892695 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.038578555 = product of:
      0.057867832 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
  0.4 = 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.
    Date
    20. 2.2009 10:29:07
    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
  5. Choi, N.; Joo, S.: Booklovers' world : an examination of factors affecting continued usage of social cataloging sites (2016) 0.03 
    0.029319597 = product of:
  0.07329899 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=3224,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=3224,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Little is known about what factors influence users' continued use of social cataloging sites. This study therefore examines the impacts of key factors from theories of information systems (IS) success and sense of community (SOC) on users' continuance intention in the social cataloging context. Data collected from an online survey of 323 social cataloging users provide empirical support for the research model. The findings indicate that both information quality (IQ) and system quality (SQ) are significant predictors of satisfaction and SOC, which in turn lead to users' intentions to continue using these sites. In addition, SOC was found to affect continuance intention not only directly, but also indirectly through satisfaction. Theoretically, this study draws attention to a largely unexplored but essential area of research in the social cataloging literature and provides a fundamental basis to understand the determinants of continued social cataloging usage. From a managerial perspective, the findings suggest that social cataloging service providers should constantly focus their efforts on the quality control of their contents and system, and the enhancement of SOC among their users.
  6. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.03 
    0.026664922 = product of:
  0.066662304 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=2891,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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
  7. Naderi, H.; Rumpler, B.: PERCIRS: a system to combine personalized and collaborative information retrieval (2010) 0.02 
    0.024188614 = product of:
  0.06047153 = sum of:
    0.05272096 = weight(_text_:system in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05272096 = score(doc=3960,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
    0.0077505717 = product of:
      0.023251714 = sum of:
        0.023251714 = weight(_text_:29 in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023251714 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that utilization of the personalization techniques can be valuable to improve the efficiency of collaborative information retrieval (CIR) systems. Design/methodology/approach - A new personalized CIR system, called PERCIRS, is presented based on the user profile similarity calculation (UPSC) formulas. To this aim, the paper proposes several UPSC formulas as well as two techniques to evaluate them. As the proposed CIR system is personalized, it could not be evaluated by Cranfield, like evaluation techniques (e.g. TREC). Hence, this paper proposes a new user-centric mechanism, which enables PERCIRS to be evaluated. This mechanism is generic and can be used to evaluate any other personalized IR system. Findings - The results show that among the proposed UPSC formulas in this paper, the (query-document)-graph based formula is the most effective. After integrating this formula into PERCIRS and comparing it with nine other IR systems, it is concluded that the results of the system are better than the other IR systems. In addition, the paper shows that the complexity of the system is less that the complexity of the other CIR systems. Research limitations/implications - This system asks the users to explicitly rank the returned documents, while explicit ranking is still not widespread enough. However it believes that the users should actively participate in the IR process in order to aptly satisfy their needs to information. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in combining collaborative and personalized IR, as well as introducing a mechanism which enables the personalized IR system to be evaluated. The proposed evaluation mechanism is very valuable for developers of personalized IR systems. The paper also introduces some significant user profile similarity calculation formulas, and two techniques to evaluate them. These formulas can also be used to find the user's community in the social networks.
    Date
    29. 8.2010 12:59:10
  8. Rorissa, A.: ¬A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection (2010) 0.02 
    0.023732612 = product of:
  0.11866306 = sum of:
    0.11866306 = weight(_text_:index in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11866306 = score(doc=4100,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.63867813 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.
  9. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.02 
    0.021780593 = product of:
  0.05445148 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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".
  10. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.02 
    0.01997978 = product of:
  0.049949452 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  11. 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 
    0.017055526 = product of:
  0.042638816 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=4171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Date
    29. 8.2010 11:39:20
  12. Yoon, K.: Conceptual syntagmatic associations in user tagging (2012) 0.02 
    0.016139356 = product of:
  0.080696784 = sum of:
    0.080696784 = weight(_text_:context in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080696784 = score(doc=240,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.45792344 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  13. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.02 
    0.015834149 = product of:
  0.03958537 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:29:31
  14. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.012345138 = product of:
  0.061725687 = sum of:
    0.061725687 = product of:
      0.09258853 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
        0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046085097 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 9:55:29
    Pages
    S.15-22
  15. Abbas, J.: In the margins : reflections on scribbles (2007) 0.01 
    0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Marginalia or 'scribbling in the margins' is a means for readers to add a more in-depth level of granularity and subject representation to digital documents such as those present in social sharing environments like Flickr and del.icio.us. Social classification and social sharing sites development of user-defined descriptors or tags is discussed in the context of knowledge organization. With this position paper I present a rationale for the use of the resulting folksonomies and tag clouds being developed in these social sharing communities as a rich source of information about our users and their natural organization processes. The knowledge organization community needs to critically examine our understandings of these emerging classificatory schema and determine how best to adapt, augment, revitalize existing knowledge organization structures.
  16. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01 
    0.011185088 = product of:
  0.05592544 = sum of:
    0.05592544 = product of:
      0.08388816 = sum of:
        0.049324337 = weight(_text_:29 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324337 = score(doc=164,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    29. 5.2012 13:58:08
    29. 5.2012 14:15:36
    Source
    ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
  17. Raban, D.R.; Ronen, I.; Guy, I.: Acting or reacting? : Preferential attachment in a people-tagging system (2011) 0.01 
    0.011183805 = product of:
  0.055919025 = sum of:
    0.055919025 = weight(_text_:system in 4371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055919025 = score(doc=4371,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 4371, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4371)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Social technologies tend to attract research on social structure or interaction. In this paper we analyze the individual use of a social technology, specifically an enterprise people-tagging application. We focus on active participants of the system and distinguish between users who initiate activity and those who respond to activity. This distinction is situated within the preferential attachment theory in order to examine which type of participant contributes more to the process of tagging. We analyze the usage of the people-tagging application in a snapshot representing 3 years of activity, focusing on self-tagging compared to tagging by and of others. The main findings are: (1) People who tag themselves are the most productive contributors to the system. (2) Preferential attachment saturation is reached at 12-14 tags per user. (3) The nature of participation is more significant than the number of participants for system growth. The paper concludes with theoretical and practical implications.
  18. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.01 
    0.01052821 = product of:
  0.026320525 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.0076808496 = product of:
      0.023042548 = sum of:
        0.023042548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023042548 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  19. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.01 
    0.01052821 = product of:
  0.026320525 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.0076808496 = product of:
      0.023042548 = sum of:
        0.023042548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023042548 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45
  20. Kipp, M.E.I.: Tagging of biomedical articles on CiteULike : a comparison of user, author and professional indexing (2011) 0.01 
    0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 4557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=4557,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 4557, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4557)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper examines the context of online indexing from the viewpoint of three different groups: users, authors, and professional indexers. User tags, author keywords, and descriptors were collected from academic journal articles, which were both indexed in PubMed and tagged on CiteULike, and analysed. Descriptive statistics, informetric measures, and thesaural term comparison shows that there are important differences in the use of keywords among the three groups in addition to similarities, which can be used to enhance support for search and browse. While tags and author keywords were found that matched descriptors exactly, other terms which did not match but provided important expansion to the indexing lexicon were found. These additional terms could be used to enhance support for searching and browsing in article databases as well as to provide invaluable data for entry vocabulary and emergent terminology for regular updates to indexing systems. Additionally, the study suggests that tags support organisation by association to task, projects, and subject while making important connections to traditional systems which classify into subject categories.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 11
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 56
  • el 6
  • b 2
  • m 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications