The impact of resource title on tags in collaborative tagging systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative tagging systems are popular tools for organization, sharing and retrieval of web resources. Their success is due to their freedom and simplicity of use. To post a resource, the user should only define a set of tags that would position the resource in the system's data structure -- folksonomy. This data structure can serve as a rich source of information about relations between tags and concepts they represent. To make use of information collaboratively added to folksonomies, we need to understand how users make tagging decisions. Three factors that are believed to influence user tagging decisions are: the tags used by other users, the organization of user's personal repository and the knowledge model shared between users. In our work we examine the role of another potential factor -- resource title. Despite all the advantages of tags, tagging is a tedious process. To minimize the effort, users are likely to tag with keywords that are easily available. We show that resource title, as a source of useful tags, is easy to access and comprehend. Given a choice of two tags with the same meaning, users are likely to be influenced by their presence in the title. However, a factor that seems to have stronger impact on users' tagging decisions is maintaining the consistency of the personal profile of tags. The results of our study reveal a new, less idealistic picture of collaborative tagging systems, in which the collaborative aspect seems to be less important than personal gains and convenience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".