Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, a number of algorithms exist for constructing tag hierarchies from social tagging data. While these algorithms were designed with ontological goals in mind, we know very little about their properties from an information retrieval perspective, such as whether these tag hierarchies support efficient navigation in social tagging systems. The aim of this paper is to investigate the usefulness of such tag hierarchies (sometimes also called folksonomies - from folk-generated taxonomy) as directories that aid navigation in social tagging systems. To this end, we simulate navigation of directories as decentralized search on a network of tags using Kleinberg's model. In this model, a tag hierarchy can be applied as background knowledge for decentralized search. By constraining the visibility of nodes in the directories we aim to mimic typical constraints imposed by a practical user interface (UI), such as limiting the number of displayed subcategories or related categories. Our experiments on five different social tagging datasets show that existing tag hierarchy algorithms can support navigation in theory, but our results also demonstrate that they face tremendous challenges when user interface (UI) restrictions are taken into account. Based on this observation, we introduce a new algorithm that constructs efficiently navigable directories on our datasets. The results are relevant for engineers and scientists aiming to improve navigability of social tagging systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".