中英文图片标签质量差异比较研究--以Flickr为例被引量：3

A Comparative Study of Quality Differences between Chinese and English Picture Tags: Taking Flickr as an Example

下载PDF

导出

摘要 [目的/意义]探索Flickr中英文图片标签存在的质量差异,有利于更好地利用社会化标签进行信息的组织与检索。[方法/过程]文章以"广义知网知识本体架构线上浏览系统"词库中动物和植物两个大类的中英文词语为基础,在Flickr网站上分别采集中文与英文的图片信息,开发了标签质量测评网站,邀请志愿者对图片网站Flickr的中英文标签进行标签质量打分和标签类型选择,对图片标签类型分布及质量得分进行了统计分析。[结果/结论]调研结果显示中文标签质量略高于英文标签质量,但是中文标签质量分布比较分散,英文标签质量分布相对比较集中。 [ Purpose/significance ] It helps use social tags for information organization and retrieval better by exploring the quality differences between Chinese and English picture tags in Flickr. [ Method/process] Based on the Chinese and English terms of animals and plants in thesaurus of e-HowNet, the paper collects the Chinese and English picture information respectively on the Flickr website and develops a tag quality evaluation website. Volunteers are invited to score tag quality and select tag type for both the Chinese and English picture tags on Flickr website. The types of picture tags distribution and quality scores are statistically ana- lyzed. [ Result/conclusion] According to the investigation, the quality of Chinese tags is better than English tags, but the distri- bution of Chinese tags＇ quality is scattered and that of English tags＇ quality is concentrated.

作者章成志赵华李蕾肖璐

机构地区南京理工大学信息管理系江苏省数据工程与知识服务重点实验室(南京大学) 南京大学信息管理学院

出处《情报理论与实践》 CSSCI 北大核心 2018年第4期123-127,共5页 Information Studies:Theory & Application

基金本文为国家社会科学基金项目“在线社交网络中基于用户的知识组织模式研究”(项目编号：14BTQ033)和中国博士后科学基金面上资助项目“数字学术资源的多粒度知识聚合研究”(项目编号：2016M601781)的成果.

关键词图片标签标签质量质量评估比较研究 picture tag tag quality quality evaluation comparative study

分类号 G254 [文化科学—图书馆学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献1

1李蕾,王冕,章成志.区分标签类型的社会化标签质量测评研究[J].图书情报工作,2013,57(23):11-16. 被引量：17

二级参考文献29

1徐静,卢章平.基于Folksonomy的信息组织及其优化[J].新世纪图书馆,2011(4):34-36. 被引量：4
2Anusua T, Piyush R, Hal D, et al. Leveraging social bookmarks from partially tagged corpus for improved webpage clustering [ J ]. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2011, 2 (3): 111-130.
3Zubiaga A, Martinez R, Fresno V. Getting the most out of social annotations for Web page classification [ C ] //Proceedings of the 9th ACM symposium on Document engineering. Germany: ACM,2009:74 -83.
4Zhou Ding, Bian Jiang, Zheng Shuyi, et al. Exploring social annotations for information retrieval [ C ] // Proceedings of the 17th International World Wide Web Conference. Beijing: 2008: 715 -724.
5Zhao Shiwan, Du Nan, Nauerz A. et al. Improved recommendation based on collaborative tagging behaviors [ C ]//Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. Gran Canaria: ACM, 2008:413-416.
6Goh D H, Chua A, Lee C S, et al. Resource discovery through social tagging: A classification and content analytic approach[J]. Online Information Review, 2009, 33 (3) : 568 - 583.
7Gu Xiwu, Wang Xianbing, Li Ruixuan, et al. Measuring social tag confidence: Is it a good or bad tag? [ J ]. Web - Age Information Management Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011,6897 : 94 - 105.
8Lee S E, Han S S K. Qtag: Introducing the qualitative tagging system [ C - //Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia. New York : ACM, 2007 : 35 - 36.
9Sen S, Harper F M, LaPitz A, et al. The quest for quality tags [ C] //Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work. New York : ACM, 2007:361 -370.
10Zhang S, Farooq U, Carroll J M. Enhancing information scent: Identifying and recommending quality tags [ C ] //Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work. New York : ACM, 2009: 1-10.