Comparative analysis of book tags: a cross-lingual perspective

被引:2
|
作者
Lu, Chao [1 ]
Zhang, Chengzhi [1 ]
He, Daqing [2 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Informat Management, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Informat Sci, Pittsburgh, PA USA
来源
ELECTRONIC LIBRARY | 2016年 / 34卷 / 04期
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Book annotation; Common space; Social tag; User tagging behaviour; SOCIAL TAGGING BEHAVIOR; SUBJECT-HEADINGS; INFORMATION; FOLKSONOMY; PATTERNS; ACCESS;
D O I
10.1108/EL-03-2015-0042
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
Purpose - In the era of social media, users all over the world annotate books with social tags to express their preferences and interests. The purpose of this paper is to explore different tagging behaviours by analysing the book tags in different languages. Design/methodology/approach - This investigation collected nearly 56,000 tags of 1,200 books from one Chinese and two English online bookmarking systems; it combined content analysis and machine-processing methods to evaluate the similarities and differences between different tagging systems from a cross-lingual perspective. Jaccard's coefficient was adopted to evaluate the similarity level. Findings - The results show that the similarity between mono-lingual tags of the same books is higher than that of cross-lingual tags in different systems and the similarity between tags of books written for specialties is higher than that of books written for the general public. Research limitations/implications - Those who have more in common annotate books with more similar tags. The similarity between users in tagging systems determines the similarity of the tag sets. Practical implications - The results and conclusion of this study will benefit users' cross-lingual information retrieval and cross-lingual book recommendation for online bookmarking systems. Originality/value - This study may be one of the first to compare cross-lingual tags. Its methodology can be applied to tag comparison between any two languages. The insights of this study will help develop cross-lingual tagging systems and improve information retrieval.
引用
收藏
页码:666 / 682
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Cross-Lingual Sentiment Quantification
    Esuli, Andrea
    Moreo, Alejandro
    Sebastiani, Fabrizio
    IEEE INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, 2020, 35 (03) : 106 - 113
  • [22] Cross-Lingual Document Similarity
    Muhic, Andrej
    Rupnik, Jan
    Skraba, Primoz
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ITI 2012 34TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERFACES (ITI), 2012, : 387 - 392
  • [23] Cross-Lingual Word Embeddings
    Corro, Caio Filippo
    TRAITEMENT AUTOMATIQUE DES LANGUES, 2019, 60 (01): : 46 - 48
  • [24] Cross-lingual document clustering
    Wu, Ke
    Lu, Bao-Liang
    ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY AND DATA MINING, PROCEEDINGS, 2007, 4426 : 956 - +
  • [25] Cross-Lingual Word Embeddings
    Agirre, Eneko
    COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS, 2020, 46 (01) : 245 - 248
  • [26] Cross-lingual CCG Induction
    Evang, Kilian
    2019 CONFERENCE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS: HUMAN LANGUAGE TECHNOLOGIES (NAACL HLT 2019), VOL. 1, 2019, : 1577 - 1587
  • [27] Cross-lingual and Multilingual CLIP
    Carlsson, Fredrik
    Eisen, Philipp
    Rekathati, Faton
    Sahlgren, Magnus
    LREC 2022: THIRTEEN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE RESOURCES AND EVALUATION, 2022, : 6848 - 6854
  • [28] Cross-Lingual Text Categorization
    Bel, N
    Koster, CHA
    Villegas, M
    RESEARCH AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FOR DIGITAL LIBRARIES, 2003, 2769 : 126 - 139
  • [29] Cross-Lingual Sentiment Analysis for Indian Regional Languages
    Impana, P.
    Kallimani, Jagadish S.
    2017 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONICS, COMMUNICATION, COMPUTER, AND OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES (ICEECCOT), 2017, : 867 - 872
  • [30] Cross-lingual latent semantic analysis for language modeling
    Kim, W
    Khudanpur, S
    2004 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL I, PROCEEDINGS: SPEECH PROCESSING, 2004, : 257 - 260