Human subjectivity and performance limits in document retrieval

Information Processing and Management

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 515-527

  Wilbur, W John ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DATA PROCESSING; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; PROBABILITY; STANDARDS; TESTING;

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; ENTREZ RETRIEVAL SYSTEM; IN HOUSE DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL ALGORITHM;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS;

EID: 0030242468     PISSN: 03064573     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0306-4573(96)00028-3     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Blair, D. C., & Maron, M. E. (1985). An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 289-299.
2. Cawkell, A. E. (1975). A measure of efficiency factor - communication theory applied to document selection systems. Information Processing & Management, 11, 243-248.
3. Cooper, W. S. (1976). Utility-theoretic versus relevance-theoretic measures of effectiveness. In S. Martin (Ed.), Information Politics, Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting (p. 44). Washington, DC: American Society for Information Science.
4. Croft, W. B. (1993). Knowledge-based and statistical approaches to text retrieval. IEEE expert: Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 8(2), 8-11.
5. Dennett, D. C. (1990). Cognitive wheels: The frame problem of AI. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 147-170). NY: Oxford University Press.
6. Entrez, S. (1992). Sequences [database on CDROM]. Version 1.0. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine. Updated bimonthly. 1 compact disc. Accompanied by 1 manual. Available from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office.
7. Evans, L. (1981). An experiment: Search strategy variations in SDI profiles. In K. Sparck Jones (Ed.), Information Retrieval Experiment (pp. 285-315) London: Butterworths.
8. Guazzo, M. (1977). Retrieval performance and information theory. Information Processing & Management, 13, 155-165.
9. Hamming, R. W. (1986). Coding and Information Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. Harman, D. (1994). Overview of the second text retrieval conference (TREC-2). In D. Harman (Ed.), The Second Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-2) (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Lenat, D. B., & Feigenbaum, E. A. (1991). On the thresholds of knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 185-250.
12. Lesk, M. E., & Salton, G. (1971). Relevance assessments and retrieval system evaluation. In G. Salton (Ed.), The Smart Retrieval System - Experiments in Automatic Document Processing (pp. 506-527). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13. Lucarella, D. (1988). A document retrieval system based on nearest neighbor searching. Journal of Information Science, 14, 25-33.
14. Maron, M. E. (1965). Mechanized documentation: The logic behind a probabilistic interpretation. In M. E. Stevens (Eds), Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation (pp. 9-13). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.
15. Maron, M. E. (1976). On indexing retrieval and the meaning of about. In S. Martin (Ed), Information Politics, Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting (p. 46). Washington, DC: American Society for Information Science.
16. Meetham, A. R. (1969). Communication theory and the evaluation of information retrieval systems. Information Storage and Retrieval, 5, 129-134.
17. Norvig, P. (1994). Review of Text-based intelligent systems, Paul Jacobs (Ed.). Artificial Intelligence, 65, 181-188.
18. Robertson, S. E. (1977). The probability ranking principle in IR. Journal of Documentation, 33, 294-304.
19. Salton, G. (1989). Automatic Text Processing. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
20. Salton, G. (1991). Developments in automatic text retrieval. Science, 253, 974-980.
21. Salton, G. (1992). The state of retrieval system evaluation. Information Processing & Management, 28(4), 441-449.
22. Saracevic, T. (1991). Individual difference in organizing, searching, and retrieving information. In J. Griffiths (Ed), Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Information Science (pp. 82-86). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
23. Saracevic, T., Kantor, P., Chamis, A. Y., & Trivson, D. (1988). A study of information seeking and retrieving. I. Background and methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(3), 161-176.
24. Sembok, T. M. T., & van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1990). Silol: A simple logical-linguistic document retrieval system. Information Processing & Management, 26(1), 111-134.
25. Smithson, S. (1994). Information retrieval evaluation in practice: A case study approach. Information Processing & Management, 30(2), 205-221.
26. Sparck Jones, K. (1981). The cranfield tests. In K. Sparck Jones (Ed.), Information Retrieval Experiment (pp. 256-284). London: Butterworths.
27. Wilbur, W. J. (1992a). An information measure of retrieval performance. Information Systems, 17(4), 283-298.
28. Wilbur, W. J. (1992b). Retrieval testing by the comparison of statistically independent retrieval methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(5), 358-370.
29. Wilbur, W. J. (1992c). A retrieval system based on the automatic relevance weighting of search terms. In D. Shaw (Ed), Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Information Science (pp. 216-220). Medford, NJ: Learned information, Inc.
30. Wilbur, W. J. (1994). Nonparametric significance tests of retrieval performance comparisons. Journal of Information Science, 20(4), 270-284.
31. Wilbur, W. J., & Coffee, L. (1994). The effectiveness of document neighboring in search enhancement. Information Processing & Management, 30(2), 253-266.