Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.10833117 = product of:
  0.21666235 = sum of:
    0.21666235 = sum of:
      0.16831324 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16831324 = score(doc=1451,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.5649015 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
      0.048349116 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048349116 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous studies of user-generated vocabularies (e.g., Golder & Huberman, 2006; Munk & Mork, 2007b; Yoon, 2009) have proposed that a primary source of tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of tags at the basic level of abstraction. However, an investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies did not support this notion. This study analyzed approximately 8000 tags generated by 40 subjects. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned to 36 online resources representing four content categories (TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) and three resource genres (news article, blog, ecommerce) did not find statistically significant preferences in the assignment of tags at the superordinate, subordinate or basic levels of abstraction. Within the framework of Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness , observed variations in the preferred level of abstraction are both natural and phenomenological in that perception and understanding -- and thus the meaning of "things" -- arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects. Operationalization of superordinate, subordinate and basic levels of abstraction using Heidegger's notion of handiness may be able to account for differences in the everyday experiences and activities of taggers, thereby leading to a better understanding of user-generated tagging vocabularies.

Date

5. 9.2014 16:22:27

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.08745811 = product of:
  0.17491622 = sum of:
    0.17491622 = product of:
      0.34983245 = sum of:
        0.34983245 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.34983245 = score(doc=3290,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1741256 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.

Theme

Social tagging

0.07713082 = product of:
  0.15426163 = sum of:
    0.15426163 = product of:
      0.30852327 = sum of:
        0.30852327 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30852327 = score(doc=3421,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.0354816 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, 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).

Theme

Social tagging

0.076052 = product of:
  0.152104 = sum of:
    0.152104 = product of:
      0.304208 = sum of:
        0.304208 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.304208 = score(doc=3360,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.0209985 = fieldWeight in 3360, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

This paper presents a longitudinal case study and analysis of tagging patterns in del.icio.us. Previous research has indicated that a tagging vocabulary will stabilize over time, suggesting that convergence may occur. This case study investigates the possibility of stability and convergence in a subset of the tagging vocabulary used with del.icio.us.

Theme

Social tagging

0.052545473 = product of:
  0.105090946 = sum of:
    0.105090946 = sum of:
      0.07774055 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07774055 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.2609168 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
      0.027350392 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027350392 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, 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=1450)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=2251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Social tagging

0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=2108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies (e.g., Yoon 2009) suggest that tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of basic level category terms. This study investigated whether differences in the superordinate, subordinate or basic level of abstraction were influenced by resource content. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned by 40 participants to 36 online resources representing four content categories (i.e., TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) found significant differences in the frequency of occurrence of subordinate and basic level tags assigned to resources in the FRUIT content category and of superordinate and basic level tags assigned to resources in the CLOTHING content category. This study suggests that variation in the level of abstraction of content related tags is natural in that perception and understanding arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects.

0.011965796 = product of:
  0.023931593 = sum of:
    0.023931593 = product of:
      0.047863185 = sum of:
        0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047863185 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.16-22

0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)

0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22