-
Lee, D.H.; Schleyer, T.: Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing : a comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers (2012)
0.06
0.05950771 = product of:
0.11901542 = sum of:
0.11901542 = product of:
0.23803084 = sum of:
0.23803084 = weight(_text_:tagging in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.23803084 = score(doc=383,freq=12.0), product of:
0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.79889125 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.
- Theme
- Social tagging
-
Lin, Y,-l.; Trattner, C.; Brusilovsky, P.; He, D.: ¬The impact of image descriptions on user tagging behavior : a study of the nature and functionality of crowdsourced tags (2015)
0.04
0.04345829 = product of:
0.08691658 = sum of:
0.08691658 = product of:
0.17383316 = sum of:
0.17383316 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17383316 = score(doc=2159,freq=10.0), product of:
0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.5834277 = fieldWeight in 2159, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2159)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Crowdsourcing has emerged as a way to harvest social wisdom from thousands of volunteers to perform a series of tasks online. However, little research has been devoted to exploring the impact of various factors such as the content of a resource or crowdsourcing interface design on user tagging behavior. Although images' titles and descriptions are frequently available in image digital libraries, it is not clear whether they should be displayed to crowdworkers engaged in tagging. This paper focuses on offering insight to the curators of digital image libraries who face this dilemma by examining (i) how descriptions influence the user in his/her tagging behavior and (ii) how this relates to the (a) nature of the tags, (b) the emergent folksonomy, and (c) the findability of the images in the tagging system. We compared two different methods for collecting image tags from Amazon's Mechanical Turk's crowdworkers-with and without image descriptions. Several properties of generated tags were examined from different perspectives: diversity, specificity, reusability, quality, similarity, descriptiveness, and so on. In addition, the study was carried out to examine the impact of image description on supporting users' information seeking with a tag cloud interface. The results showed that the properties of tags are affected by the crowdsourcing approach. Tags from the "with description" condition are more diverse and more specific than tags from the "without description" condition, while the latter has a higher tag reuse rate. A user study also revealed that different tag sets provided different support for search. Tags produced "with description" shortened the path to the target results, whereas tags produced without description increased user success in the search task.
-
Moreiro-González, J.-A.; Bolaños-Mejías, C.: Folksonomy indexing from the assignment of free tags to setup subject : a search analysis into the domain of legal history (2018)
0.02
0.024293922 = product of:
0.048587844 = sum of:
0.048587844 = product of:
0.09717569 = sum of:
0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09717569 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.326146 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The behaviour and lexical quality of the folksonomies is examined by comparing two online social networks: Library-Thing (for books) and Flickr (for photos). We presented a case study that combines quantitative and qualitative elements, singularized by the lexical and functional framework. Our query was made by "Legal History" and by the synonyms "Law History" and "History of Law." We then examined the relevance, consistency and precision of the tags attached to the retrieved documents, in addition to their lexical composition. We identified the difficulties caused by free tagging and some of the folksonomy solutions that have been found to solve them. The results are presented in comparative tables, giving special attention to related tags within each retrieved document. Although the number of ambiguous or inconsistent tags is not very large, these do nevertheless represent the most obvious problem to search and retrieval in folksonomies. Relevance is high when the terms are assigned by especially competent taggers. Even with less expert taggers, ambiguity is often successfully corrected by contextualizing the concepts within related tags. A propinquity to associative and taxonomic lexical semantic knowledge is reached via contextual relationships.
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960)
0.02
0.020512793 = product of:
0.041025586 = sum of:
0.041025586 = product of:
0.08205117 = sum of:
0.08205117 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08205117 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
-
Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996)
0.01
0.013675196 = product of:
0.027350392 = sum of:
0.027350392 = product of:
0.054700784 = sum of:
0.054700784 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054700784 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
-
Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.01
0.011965796 = product of:
0.023931593 = sum of:
0.023931593 = product of:
0.047863185 = sum of:
0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047863185 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
-
Neshat, N.; Horri, A.: ¬A study of subject indexing consistency between the National Library of Iran and Humanities Libraries in the area of Iranian studies (2006)
0.01
0.011965796 = product of:
0.023931593 = sum of:
0.023931593 = product of:
0.047863185 = sum of:
0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047863185 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4. 1.2007 10:22:26
-
Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005)
0.01
0.010256397 = product of:
0.020512793 = sum of:
0.020512793 = product of:
0.041025586 = sum of:
0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041025586 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 6.2005 13:16:22
-
Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000)
0.01
0.010256397 = product of:
0.020512793 = sum of:
0.020512793 = product of:
0.041025586 = sum of:
0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041025586 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
-
Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006)
0.01
0.008546998 = product of:
0.017093996 = sum of:
0.017093996 = product of:
0.03418799 = sum of:
0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03418799 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
White, H.; Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.: HIVEing : the effect of a semantic web technology on inter-indexer consistency (2014)
0.01
0.008546998 = product of:
0.017093996 = sum of:
0.017093996 = product of:
0.03418799 = sum of:
0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03418799 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.
-
Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002)
0.00
0.003418799 = product of:
0.006837598 = sum of:
0.006837598 = product of:
0.013675196 = sum of:
0.013675196 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013675196 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05046712 = queryNorm
0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
