2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23736
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A survey on tag recommendation methods

Abstract: Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
42
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
42
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Examples of hybrid taxonomy-folksonomy approaches exist in the literature [ 43 , 44 ]. We might also assist users to tag content by providing recommendations generated through a variety of techniques, including tag cooccurrence, content-based, graph-based, and clustering- or topic-based methods [ 45 ]. However, it is important to consider whether the provision of tags might stifle creativity and prevent users from making a greater effort to fully elucidate their thoughts using the most appropriate tag.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examples of hybrid taxonomy-folksonomy approaches exist in the literature [ 43 , 44 ]. We might also assist users to tag content by providing recommendations generated through a variety of techniques, including tag cooccurrence, content-based, graph-based, and clustering- or topic-based methods [ 45 ]. However, it is important to consider whether the provision of tags might stifle creativity and prevent users from making a greater effort to fully elucidate their thoughts using the most appropriate tag.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Automated annotation can support users' tagging process, reduce their cognitive overhead, and help produce more stable, quality folksonomies on social media platforms [6]- [8]. It is natural to automatically annotate new documents with an existing collection of cleaned tags originally contributed by users.…”
Section: A Automated Social Text Annotationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Automatic social annotation is highly relevant to "tag recommendation" in the literature [8], which suggests tags from the list of candidates for different objects to support overall resource organization. Previous studies applied term frequency-based lexical features [9], adaptive hypergraph learning [6], and probabilistic graphical models [10], [11] to model the automated tagging process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Para evaluar la línea base y el modelo propuesto, se utilizaron las métricas estándar de precisión, recall (cobertura) y f-measure (medida f mejor conocida como F1) (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999). La precisión mide la cantidad de etiquetas recomendadas que fueron usadas por el usuario para anotar el recurso, recall mide el número de etiquetas relevantes recomendadas sobre el total que debieron recomendarse y F1 es una medida que balancea precisión y recall.…”
Section: B Métricas De Evaluaciónunclassified