2011
DOI: 10.1177/0165551511408847
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social tags for resource discovery: a comparison between machine learning and user-centric approaches

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of tags in facilitating resource discovery through machine learning and user-centric approaches. Drawing our dataset from a popular social tagging system, Delicious, we conducted six text categorization experiments using the top 100 frequently occurring tags. We also conducted a human evaluation experiment to manually evaluate the relevance of some 2000 documents related to these tags. The results from the text categorization experiments suggest t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some studies have compared and matched social tags with controlled vocabularies, applying various methods and measurements. Razikin, Goh, Chua, and Lee () examined tag effectiveness in document categorization using machine learning methods [i.e., term frequency–inverted document frequency (tf–idf)] and measured its effectiveness with precision, recall, and F‐measure. Lee and Schleyer () compared CiteULike tags and MeSH terms using similarity measurement (i.e., Jaccard similarity) and observed that tag terms and MeSH terms show different understandings of reader and indexer groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies have compared and matched social tags with controlled vocabularies, applying various methods and measurements. Razikin, Goh, Chua, and Lee () examined tag effectiveness in document categorization using machine learning methods [i.e., term frequency–inverted document frequency (tf–idf)] and measured its effectiveness with precision, recall, and F‐measure. Lee and Schleyer () compared CiteULike tags and MeSH terms using similarity measurement (i.e., Jaccard similarity) and observed that tag terms and MeSH terms show different understandings of reader and indexer groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that there are both useful and noisy tags in a tag set and to make use of tags it is important to identify the useful ones (Razikin et al, ; Tonkin, ). Tonkin () categorized tag forms into words, simple compounds, known encodings and unknown.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With this point of view, studies have compared user tags with controlled vocabularies, such as subject headings (Lee & Schleyer, 2010;Lu, Park, & Hu, 2010;Rolla, 2009;Yi & Chan, 2009), using different measurements for comparison including Jaccard similarity, TF-IDF, cosine-based similarity, etc. (Lee & Schleyer, 2010;Razikin et al, 2011;Yi, 2011).…”
Section: Approaches Of Using Social Tagsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consequently, a user profile can also profit from these tags. In the last few years, a number of studies have tried to combine recommender systems with social tagging in a manner that can be highly beneficial in both areas [10][11][12]. Hybrid systems, employing this combination, are able to generate automated recommendations while retaining the flexibility of tags incorporating human-perceptive content [13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%