Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.03
    0.03297302 = product of:
      0.06594604 = sum of:
        0.06594604 = sum of:
          0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.030652853 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052098576 = queryNorm
              0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
          0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03529319 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052098576 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  2. Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012) 0.03
    0.028673118 = product of:
      0.057346236 = sum of:
        0.057346236 = product of:
          0.11469247 = sum of:
            0.11469247 = weight(_text_:web in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11469247 = score(doc=432,freq=28.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.6745654 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
                  5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                    28.0 = termFreq=28.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    For a long while, the creation of Web content required at least basic knowledge of Web technologies, meaning that for many Web users, the Web was de facto a read-only medium. This changed with the arrival of the "social Web," when Web applications started to allow users to publish Web content without technological expertise. Here, content creation is often an inclusive, iterative, and interactive process. Examples of social Web applications include blogs, social networking sites, as well as many specialized applications, for example, for saving and sharing bookmarks and publishing photos. Social semantic Web applications are social Web applications in which knowledge is expressed not only in the form of text and multimedia but also through informal to formal annotations that describe, reflect, and enhance the content. These annotations often take the shape of RDF graphs backed by ontologies, but less formal annotations such as free-form tags or tags from a controlled vocabulary may also be available. Wikis are one example of social Web applications for collecting and sharing knowledge. They allow users to easily create and edit documents, so-called wiki pages, using a Web browser. The pages in a wiki are often heavily interlinked, which makes it easy to find related information and browse the content.
    Source
    Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  3. Hsu, M.-H.; Chen, H.-H.: Efficient and effective prediction of social tags to enhance Web search (2011) 0.02
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = product of:
          0.08669936 = sum of:
            0.08669936 = weight(_text_:web in 4625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08669936 = score(doc=4625,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 4625, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4625)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    As the web has grown into an integral part of daily life, social annotation has become a popular manner for web users to manage resources. This method of management has many potential applications, but it is limited in applicability by the cold-start problem, especially for new resources on the web. In this article, we study automatic tag prediction for web pages comprehensively and utilize the predicted tags to improve search performance. First, we explore the stabilizing phenomenon of tag usage in a social bookmarking system. Then, we propose a two-stage tag prediction approach, which is efficient and is effective in making use of early annotations from users. In the first stage, content-based ranking, candidate tags are selected and ranked to generate an initial tag list. In the second stage, random-walk re-ranking, we adopt a random-walk model that utilizes tag co-occurrence information to re-rank the initial list. The experimental results show that our algorithm effectively proposes appropriate tags for target web pages. In addition, we present a framework to incorporate tag prediction in a general web search. The experimental results of the web search validate the hypothesis that the proposed framework significantly enhances the typical retrieval model.
  4. Huang, C.; Fu, T.; Chen, H.: Text-based video content classification for online video-sharing sites (2010) 0.02
    0.020274958 = product of:
      0.040549915 = sum of:
        0.040549915 = product of:
          0.08109983 = sum of:
            0.08109983 = weight(_text_:web in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08109983 = score(doc=3452,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  5. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.02
    0.018582305 = product of:
      0.03716461 = sum of:
        0.03716461 = product of:
          0.07432922 = sum of:
            0.07432922 = weight(_text_:web in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07432922 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    There are close to a billion websites on the Internet with approximately 400 million users worldwide [www.internetworldstats.com]. People go to websites for a wide variety of different information tasks, from finding a restaurant to serious research. Many of the difficulties with searching the Web, as it is structured currently, can be attributed to increases to scale. The content of the Web is now so large that we only have a rough estimate of the number of sites and the range of information is extremely diverse, from blogs and photos to research articles and news videos.
  6. Wei, W.; Ram, S.: Utilizing sozial bookmarking tag space for Web content discovery : a social network analysis approach (2010) 0.02
    0.01839171 = product of:
      0.03678342 = sum of:
        0.03678342 = product of:
          0.07356684 = sum of:
            0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07356684 = score(doc=1,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Social bookmarking has gained popularity since the advent of Web 2.0. Keywords known as tags are created to annotate web content, and the resulting tag space composed of the tags, the resources, and the users arises as a new platform for web content discovery. Useful and interesting web resources can be located through searching and browsing based on tags, as well as following the user-user connections formed in the social bookmarking community. However, the effectiveness of tag-based search is limited due to the lack of explicitly represented semantics in the tag space. In addition, social connections between users are underused for web content discovery because of the inadequate social functions. In this research, we propose a comprehensive framework to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model. We also studied the structure and properties of various networks emerging from the tag space for the purpose of more efficient web content discovery. The major research approach used in this research is social network analysis (SNA), together with methodologies employed in design science research. The contribution of our research includes: (i) a faceted model to categorize social bookmarking tags; (ii) a relationship ontology to represent the semantics of relationships between tags; (iii) heuristics to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model using analysis of tag-tag co-occurrence networks; (iv) an implemented prototype system as proof-of-concept to validate the feasibility of the reorganization approach; (v) a set of evaluations of the social functions of the current networking features of social bookmarking and a series of recommendations as to how to improve the social functions to facilitate web content discovery.
    Content
    A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WITH A MAJOR IN MANAGEMENT In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA. Vgl.: http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195123. Vgl. auch: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Utilizing-social-bookmarking-tag-space-for-web-a-Ram-Wei/da9e7e5ee771008b741af7176d3f0d67128d1dca.
  7. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.02
    0.017339872 = product of:
      0.034679744 = sum of:
        0.034679744 = product of:
          0.06935949 = sum of:
            0.06935949 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06935949 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.
    Source
    Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
  8. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Fried, M.; Toma, I.; Yan, E.; Foo, S.; Milojevicacute, S.: Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data (2010) 0.02
    0.015927691 = product of:
      0.031855382 = sum of:
        0.031855382 = product of:
          0.063710764 = sum of:
            0.063710764 = weight(_text_:web in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.063710764 = score(doc=3421,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Data integration and mediation have become central concerns of information technology over the past few decades. With the advent of the Web and the rapid increases in the amount of data and the number of Web documents and users, researchers have focused on enhancing the interoperability of data through the development of metadata schemes. Other researchers have looked to the wealth of metadata generated by bookmarking sites on the Social Web. While several existing ontologies have capitalized on the semantics of metadata created by tagging activities, the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO) emphasizes the structure of tagging activities to facilitate modeling of tagging data and the integration of data from different bookmarking sites as well as the alignment of tagging ontologies. UTO is described and its utility in modeling, harvesting, integrating, searching, and analyzing data is demonstrated with metadata harvested from three major social tagging systems (Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube).
  9. Konkova, E.; Göker, A.; Butterworth, R.; MacFarlane, A.: Social tagging: exploring the image, the tags, and the game (2014) 0.01
    0.013004904 = product of:
      0.026009807 = sum of:
        0.026009807 = product of:
          0.052019615 = sum of:
            0.052019615 = weight(_text_:web in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052019615 = score(doc=1370,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  10. Rorissa, A.: ¬A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection (2010) 0.01
    0.01083742 = product of:
      0.02167484 = sum of:
        0.02167484 = product of:
          0.04334968 = sum of:
            0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04334968 = score(doc=4100,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  11. Choi, Y.: ¬A Practical application of FRBR for organizing information in digital environments (2012) 0.01
    0.01083742 = product of:
      0.02167484 = sum of:
        0.02167484 = product of:
          0.04334968 = sum of:
            0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04334968 = score(doc=319,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 319, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=319)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This study employs the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) conceptual model to provide in-depth investigation on the characteristics of social tags by analyzing the bibliographic attributes of tags that are not limited to subject properties. FRBR describes four different levels of entities (i.e., Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item), which provide a distinguishing understanding of each entity in the bibliographic universe. In this research, since the scope of data analysis focuses on tags assigned to web documents, consideration on Manifestation and Item has been excluded. Accordingly, only the attributes of Work and Expression entity were investigated in order to map the attributes of tags to attributes defined in those entities. The content analysis on tag attributes was conducted on a total of 113 web documents regarding 11 attribute categories defined by FRBR. The findings identified essential bibliographic attributes of tags and tagging behaviors by subject. The findings showed that concerning specific subject areas, taggers exhibited different tagging behaviors representing distinctive features and tendencies. These results have led to the conclusion that there should be an increased awareness of diverse user needs by subject in terms of the practical implications of metadata generation.
  12. Feinberg, M.: Expressive bibliography : personal collections in public space (2011) 0.01
    0.010728499 = product of:
      0.021456998 = sum of:
        0.021456998 = product of:
          0.042913996 = sum of:
            0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042913996 = score(doc=4561,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper examines collections of citations that individual users contribute to social tagging systems such as Delicious and LibraryThing. I characterize these personal collections, furnished with various forms of metadata and arranged for Web display, as a means of communication, where a particular sensibility molds guiding principles for resource selection, description, and categorization. Using several analytic frameworks from museum studies, I present three brief case studies that interrogate both the substance and the means of expression achieved in such collections, which I term "expressive bibliographies." In considering these case studies, I explore how an explicit rhetorical perspective might inform purposeful design of expressive bibliography.
  13. Bundza, M.: ¬The choice is yours! : researchers assign subject metadata to their own materials in institutional repositories (2014) 0.01
    0.010728499 = product of:
      0.021456998 = sum of:
        0.021456998 = product of:
          0.042913996 = sum of:
            0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042913996 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.
  14. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01
    0.010587957 = product of:
      0.021175914 = sum of:
        0.021175914 = product of:
          0.042351827 = sum of:
            0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042351827 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  15. Wang, J.; Clements, M.; Yang, J.; Vries, A.P. de; Reinders, M.J.T.: Personalization of tagging systems (2010) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 4229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=4229,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4229, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4229)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Social media systems have encouraged end user participation in the Internet, for the purpose of storing and distributing Internet content, sharing opinions and maintaining relationships. Collaborative tagging allows users to annotate the resulting user-generated content, and enables effective retrieval of otherwise uncategorised data. However, compared to professional web content production, collaborative tagging systems face the challenge that end-users assign tags in an uncontrolled manner, resulting in unsystematic and inconsistent metadata. This paper introduces a framework for the personalization of social media systems. We pinpoint three tasks that would benefit from personalization: collaborative tagging, collaborative browsing and collaborative search. We propose a ranking model for each task that integrates the individual user's tagging history in the recommendation of tags and content, to align its suggestions to the individual user preferences. We demonstrate on two real data sets that for all three tasks, the personalized ranking should take into account both the user's own preference and the opinion of others.
  16. Estellés Arolas, E.; González Ladrón-de-Guevar, F.: Uses of explicit and implicit tags in social bookmarking (2012) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Although Web 2.0 contains many tools with different functionalities, they all share a common social nature. One tool in particular, social bookmarking systems (SBSs), allows users to store and share links to different types of resources, i.e., websites, videos, images. To identify and classify these resources so that they can be retrieved and shared, fragments of text are used. These fragments of text, usually words, are called tags. A tag that is found on the inside of a resource text is referred to as an obvious or explicit tag. There are also nonobvious or implicit tags, which don't appear in the resource text. The purpose of this article is to describe the present situation of the SBSs tool and then to also determine the principal features of and how to use explicit tags. It will be taken into special consideration which HTML tags with explicit tags are used more frequently.
  17. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
  18. Fox, M.J.: Communities of practice, gender and social tagging (2012) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Social or collaborative tagging enables users to organize and label resources on the web. Libraries and other information environments hope that tagging can complement professional subject access with user-created terms. But who are the taggers, and does their language represent that of the user population? Some language theorists believe that inherent variables, such as gender or race, can be responsible for language use, whereas other researchers endorse more multiply-influenced practice-based approaches, where interactions with others affect language use more than a single variable. To explore whether linguistic variation in tagging is influenced more by gender or context, in this exploratory study, I will analyze the content and quantity of tags used on LibraryThing. This study seeks to dismantle stereotypical views of women's language use and to suggest a community of practice-based approach to analyzing social tags.
  19. Choi, Y.: ¬A complete assessment of tagging quality : a consolidated methodology (2015) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 1730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=1730,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1730, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1730)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents a methodological discussion of a study of tagging quality in subject indexing. The data analysis in the study was divided into 3 phases: analysis of indexing consistency, analysis of tagging effectiveness, and analysis of the semantic values of tags. To analyze indexing consistency, this study employed the vector space model-based indexing consistency measures. An analysis of tagging effectiveness with tagging exhaustivity and tag specificity was conducted to ameliorate the drawbacks of consistency analysis based on only the quantitative measures of vocabulary matching. To further investigate the semantic values of tags at various levels of specificity, a latent semantic analysis (LSA) was conducted. To test statistical significance for the relation between tag specificity and semantic quality, correlation analysis was conducted. This research demonstrates the potential of tags for web document indexing with a complete assessment of tagging quality and provides a basis for further study of the strengths and limitations of tagging.
  20. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.

Languages

  • e 25
  • d 4

Types

  • a 26
  • m 3
  • el 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…