Relevance: The whole history

Journal of the American Society for Information Science

Volumn 48, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 810-832

  Mizzaro, Stefano ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; DATABASE SYSTEMS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

DOCUMENTATION REPRESENTATION;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

EID: 0031236806     PISSN: 00028231     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199709)48:9<810::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-U     Document Type: Review

References (185)

1. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1960). Some theoretical aspects of the mechanization of literature searching (NSF Rep. AD-236 772 and PB-161 547). Washington, DC: Office of Technical Services.
2. Barhydt, G. C. (1964). A comparison of relevance assessments by three types of evaluator. Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute (pp. 383-385). Washington, DC: American Documentation Institute.
3. Barhydt, G. C. (1967). The effectiveness of non-user relevance assessments. Journal of Documentation, 23(2,3), 146-149, 251.
4. Barry, C. L. (1993). The identification of user relevance criteria and document characteristics: Beyond the topical approach to information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
5. Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 149-159.
6. Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13, 407-424.
7. Bates, M. J. (1990). Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Information Processing & Management, 26(5), 575-591.
8. Belkin, N. J., Oddy, R. N., & Brooks, H. M. (1982a). ASK for information retrieval: Part I. Background and theory. Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.
9. Belkin, N. J., Oddy, R. N., & Brooks, H. M. (1982b). ASK for information retrieval: Part II. Results of a design study. Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 145-164.
10. Belzer, J. (1973). Information theory as a measure of information content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 300-304.
11. Bookstein, A. (1977). When the most "pertinent" document should not be retrieved - An analysis of the Swets model. Information Processing & Management, 13(6), 377-383.
12. Bookstein, A. (1979). Relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 30, 269-273.
13. Bookstein, A. (1983). Information retrieval: A sequential learning process. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34, 331-342.
14. Boyce, B. (1982). Beyond topicality: A two stage view of relevance and the retrieval process. Information Processing & Management, 18, 105-109.
15. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85-86.
16. Brajnik, G., Mizzaro, S., & Tasso, C. (1995). Interface intelligenti a banche di dati bibliografici [Intelligent interfaces for bibliographic data bases]. In D. Saccà (Ed.), Sistemi evoluti per basi di dati (pp. 95-128). (In Italian) Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.
17. Brajnik, G., Mizzaro, S., & Tasso, C. (1996). Evaluating user interfaces to information retrieval systems: A case study on user support. ACM SIGIR'96, 19th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, August 1996, Zurich, Switzerland, (pp. 128-136). New York: ACM Press.
18. Brookes, B. C. (1980). Measurement in information science: Objective and subjective metrical space. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 31, 248-255.
19. Bruce, H. W. (1994). A cognitive view of the situational dynamism of user-centered relevance estimation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 142-148.
20. Bruza, P. D. (1993). Stratified information disclosure: A synthesis between hypermedia and information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
21. Bruza, P. D., & van der Weide, T. P. (1991). The modelling and retrieval of documents using index expression. SIGIR Forum, 25(2), 91-103.
22. Bruza, P. D., & van der Weide, T. P. (1992). Stratified hypermedia structures for information disclosure. The Computer Journal, 35(3), 208-220.
23. Burgin, R. (1992). Variations in relevance judgments and the evaluation of retrieval performance. Information Processing & Management, 28(5), 619-627.
24. Chellas, B. F. (1980). Modal logic. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
25. Cool, C., Belkin, N. J., & Kantor, P. B. (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting (pp. 77-84). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
26. Cooper, W. S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7(1), 19-37.
27. Cooper, W. S. (1973a). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1: The "subjective" philosophy of evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 87-100.
28. Cooper, W. S. (1973b). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 2: Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 413-424.
29. Cooper, W. S., & Maron, M. E. (1978). Foundation of probabilistic and utility-theoretic indexing. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 25(1), 67-80.
30. Crestani, F., & van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1995a). Information retrieval by logical imaging. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 3-17.
31. Crestani, F., & van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1995b). Probability kinematics in information retrieval. ACM SIGIR, 18th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Seattle, WA (pp. 291-299).
32. Cuadra, C. A., & Katter, R. V. (1967a). Experimental studies of relevance judgements (NSF Rep. TM-3520/001,002, 003, 3 vols.). Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development Corporation.
33. Cuadra, C. A., & Katter, R. V. (1967b). Opening the black box of "relevance." Journal of Documentation, 23(4), 291-303.
34. Cuadra, C. A., & Katter, R. V. (1967c). The relevance of relevance assessment. Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute (Vol. 4, pp. 95-99). Washington, DC: American Documentation Institute.
35. Davidson, D. (1977). The effect of individual differences of cognitive styles on judgments of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28, 273-284.
36. Dervin, B. (1983). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods and results to date. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Meeting, May 1983, Dallas, TX.
37. Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 21, pp. 3-33). White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry.
38. Devlin, K. (1991). Logic and information. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39. Doyle, L. B. (1963). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation? Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute (pp. 199-200). Washington, DC: American Documentation Institute.
40. Dym, E. D. (1967). Relevance predictability: I. Investigation background and procedures. In A. Kent et al. (Eds.), Electronic handling of information: testing and evaluation (pp. 175-185). Washington, DC: Thompson Book Co.
41. Eisenberg, M. (1986). Magnitude estimation and the measurement of relevance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
42. Eisenberg, M. B. (1988). Measuring relevance judgments. Information Processing & Management, 24(4), 373-389.
43. Eisenberg, M., & Barry, C. (1986). Order effects: A preliminary study of the possible influence of presentation order on user judgments of document relevance. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 80-86). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
44. Eisenberg, M., & Barry, C. (1988). Order effects: A study of the possible influences of presentation order on user judgment of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39, 293-300.
45. Eisenberg, M., & Hu, X. (1987). Dichotomous relevance judgments and the evaluation of information systems. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 66-69). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
46. Ellis, D. (1984). Theory and explanation in information retrieval research. Journal of Information Science, 8, 25-38.
47. Ellis, D. (1996). The dilemma of measurement in information retrieval research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 23-36.
48. Fairthorne, R. A. (1963). Implications of test procedures. In A. Kent (Ed.), Information retrieval in action (pp. 109-113). Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press.
49. Figueiredo, R. C. (1978). Estudo comparativo de julgamentos de relevância do usuário e não-usuário de serviços de D.S.I. Ciéncia da Informação - Rio de Janeiro, 7, 69-78.
50. Foskett, D. J. (1970). Classification and indexing in the social sciences. In ASLIB Proceedings (Vol. 22, pp. 90-100).
51. Foskett, D. J. (1972). A note on the concept of "relevance." Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(2), 77-78.
52. Foster, J. (1986). Book review: An experiment in human preferences for documents in a simulated information system. Canadian Journal of Information Science, pp. 66-68.
53. Froehlich, T. J. (1991). Towards a better conceptual framework for understanding relevance for information science research. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Washington, DC (pp. 118-125). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
54. Froehlich, T. J. (1994). Relevance reconsidered - Towards an agenda for the 21st century: Introduction to special topic issue on relevance research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 124-133.
55. Froehlich, T. J., & Eisenberg, M. (1992). SIG/FIS - Relevance: A dialogue about fundamentals. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, PA. (pp. 330-331).
56. Gifford, C., & Baumanis, G. J. (1969). On understanding user choices: Textual correlates of relevance judgments. American Documentation, 20(1), 21-26.
57. Goffman, W. (1964). On relevance as a measure. Information Storage and Retrieval 2(3), 201-203.
58. Goffman, W. (1970). A general theory of communication. In T. Saracevic (Ed.), Introduction to information science (chap. 13, pp. 726-747). New York: Bowker.
59. Goffman, W., & Newill, V. A. (1966). Methodology for test and evaluation of information retrieval systems. Information Storage and Retrieval 3(1), 19-25.
60. Goffman, W., & Newill, V. A. (1967). Communication and epidemic processes. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 298, 316-334.
61. Gordon, M. D., & Lenk, P. (1991). A utility theoretic examination of the probability ranking principle in information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 703-714.
62. Gull, C. D. (1956). Seven years of work on the organization of materials in special library. American Documentation, 7, 320-329.
63. Hagerty, K. (1967). Abstracts as a basis for relevance judgment. Unpublished master's thesis, Graduate Library School, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
64. Halpern, D., & Nilan, M. S. (1988). A step toward shifting the research emphasis in information science from the system to the user: An empirical investigation of source-evaluation behaviour in information seeking and use. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 169-176). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
65. Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.). (1981). Ifs. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
66. Harter, S. P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 602-615.
67. Harter, S. P. (1996). Variations in relevance assessments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 37-49.
68. Hersh, W. (1994). Relevance and retrieval evaluation: Perspectives from medicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 201-206.
69. Hillman, D. J. (1964). The notion of relevance (I). American Documentation, 15(1), 26-34.
70. Huffman, J. M. (1965). Experimental design for measuring the intra-and inter-group consistence of human judgment for relevance. Unpublished master's thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
71. Howard, D. L. (1994). Pertinence as reflected in personal constructs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 172-185.
72. Ingwersen, P. (1992). Information retrieval interaction. London: Taylor Graham.
73. Janes, J. W. (1989). Towards a search theory of information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
74. Janes, J. W. (1991a). The binary nature of continuous relevance judgments: A case study of users' perceptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(10), 754-756.
75. Janes, J. W. (1991b). Relevance judgments and the incremental presentation of document representations. Information Processing & Management, 27(6), 629-646.
76. Janes, J. W. (1993). On the distribution of relevance judgments. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 104-114). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
77. Janes, J. W. (1994). Other people's judgments: A comparison of user's and other's judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 160-171.
78. Janes, J. W., & McKinney. R. (1992). Relevance judgments of actual users and secondary judges. Library Quarterly, 62, 150-168.
79. JASIS (1994). Special topic issue: Relevance research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3).
80. Katter, R. V. (1967). Study of document representations: Multidimensional scaling of index terms (Tech. Rep., 100 p.). Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development Corporation.
81. Katter, R. V. (1968). The influence of scale form on relevance judgment. Information Storage and Retrieval, 4(1), 1-11.
82. Katzer, J., & Snyder, H. (1990). Toward a more realistic assessment of information retrieval performance. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 80-85). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
83. Kazhdan, T. V. (1979). Effects of subjective expert evaluation of relevance on the performance parameters of a document-based information-retrieval system. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya 2, 13, 21-24.
84. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs: Volume 1: A theory of personality. New York: W. W. Norton.
85. Kemp, D. A. (1974). Relevance, pertinence and information system development. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10(2), 37-47.
86. Kochen, M. (1974). Principles of information retrieval. Los Angeles, CA: Melville.
87. Koll, M. B. (1979). The concept space in information retrieval systems as a model of human concept relations, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, School of Information Studies, Syracuse, NY.
88. Koll, M. B. (1981). Information retrieval theory and design based on a model of the user's concept relations. In R. N. Oddy, S. E. Robertson, C. J. van Rijsbergen, & P. W. Williams (Eds.), Information retrieval research (pp. 77-93). London: Butterworths.
89. Lalmas, M. (1996). Theories of information and uncertainty for the modelling of information retrieval: An application to situation theory and Dempster-Shafer's theory of evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
90. Lalmas, M., & van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1992). A logical model of information retrieval based on situation theory. BCS 14th Information Retrieval Colloquium, Lancaster (pp. 1-13).
91. Lalmas, M., & van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1993). Situation theory and Dempster-Shafer's theory of evidence for information retrieval. Proceedings of Workshop on Incompleteness and Uncertainty in Information Systems. Concordia University, Montreal, (pp. 62-67).
92. Lalmas, M., & van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1996). Information calculus for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 385-398.
93. Lancaster, F. W. (1979). Information retrieval systems: Characteristics, testing and evaluation (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
94. Lesk, M. E., & Salton, G. (1968). Relevance assessments and retrieval system evaluation. Information Storage and Retrieval, 4(3), 343-359.
95. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16(12), 317-323.
96. MacMullin, S. E., & Taylor, R. S. (1984). Problem dimensions and information traits. The Information Society, 3(1), 91-111.
97. Marcus, R. S., Kugel, P., & Benenfeld, A. R. (1978). Catalog information and text as indicators of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29, 15-30.
98. Maron, M. E. (1977). On indexing, retrieval and the meaning of about. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28, 38-43.
99. Maron, M. E., & Kuhns, J. L. (1960). On relevance, probabilistic indexing, and information retrieval. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 7(3), 216-244.
100. Meadow, C. T. (1985). Relevance? [Letter to the editor]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36, 354-355.
101. Meadow, C. T. (1986). Problems of information science research. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 11, 18-23.
102. Meghini, C., Sebastiani, F., Straccia, U., & Thanos, C. (1993). A model of information retrieval based on a terminological logic. ACM SIGIR, 16th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Pittsburgh, PA (pp. 298-307). New York: ACM Press.
103. Mizzaro, S. (1995). Le differenti relevance in information retrieval: Una classificazione. Atti del Congresso Annuale AICA '95 (Vol. I. pp. 361-368) ["The various relevances in information retrieval: A classification. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference AICA'95]. (In Italian)
104. Mizzaro, S. (1995). Le differenti relevance in information retrieval: Una classificazione. Atti del Congresso Annuale AICA '95 (Vol. I. pp. 361-368) ["The various relevances in information retrieval: A classification. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference AICA'95]. (In Italian)
105. Mizzaro, S. (1996a). A cognitive analysis of information retrieval. In P. Ingwersen and N. O. Pors (Eds.), Information Science: Integration in Perspective-Proceedings of COLISZ (pp. 233-250). Copenhagen, Denmark: The Royal School of Librarianship.
106. Mizzaro, S. (1996b). Relevance: The whole (hi)story (Research Rep. UDMI/12/96/RR). Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
107. Mooers, C. S. (1950). Coding, information retrieval, and the rapid selector. American Documentation, 1(4), 225-229.
108. Nie, J. Y. (1988). An outline of a general model for information retrieval systems. ACM SIGIR, 11th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Grenoble, France (pp. 495-506). Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
109. Nie, J. Y. (1989). An information retrieval model based on modal logic. Information Processing & Management, 25(5), 477-491.
110. Nie, J. Y. (1992). Towards a probabilistic modal logic for semanticbased information retrieval. ACM SIGIR, 15th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 140-151). New York: ACM Press.
111. Nie, J. Y., Brisebois, M., & Lepage, F. (1995). Information retrieval as counterfactual. The Computer Journal, 38(8), 643-657.
112. Nilan, M. S., Peek, R. P., & Snyder, H. W. (1988). A methodology for tapping user evaluation behaviors: An exploration of users' strategy, source and information evaluating. Proceedings of the American Soci-ety for Information Science (pp. 152-159). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
113. O'Brien, A. (1990). Relevance as an aid to evaluation in OPACs. Journal of Information Science, 16, 265-271.
114. O'Connor, J. (1967). Relevance disagreements and unclear request forms. American Documentation, 18(3), 165-177.
115. O'Connor, J. (1968). Some questions concerning "information need." American Documentation, 19(2),1 200-203.
116. O'Connor, J. (1969). Some independent agreements and resolved disagreements about answer providing documents. American Documentation, 20(4), 311-319.
117. Ottaviani, J. S. (1994). The fractal nature of relevance: A hypothesis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 263-272.
118. Paisley, W. J. (1968). Information needs and uses. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 3, 1-30.
119. Park, T. K. (1992). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
120. Park, T. K. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63, 318-351.
121. Park, T. K. (1994). Toward a theory of user-based relevance: A call for a new paradigm of inquiry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 135-141.
122. Perry, J. W. (1951). Superimposed punching of numerical codes on handsorted, punch cards. American Documentation, 2(4), 205-212
123. Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683) 510-515.
124. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 292-306.
125. Purgailis, Parker, L. M. P., & Johnson, R. E. (1990). Does order of presentation affect users' judgement of documents? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 493-494.
126. Rath, G. J., Resnick, A., & Savage, T. R. (1961). Comparisons of four types of lexical indicators of content. American Documentation, 12(2), 126-130.
127. Rees, A. M. (1966). The relevance of relevance to the testing and evaluation of document retrieval systems. ASLIB Proceedings, 18, 316-324.
128. Rees, A. M., & Saracevic, T. (1963). Conceptual analysis of questions in information retrieval systems. Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute (pp. 175-177). Washington, DC: American Documentation Institute.
129. Rees, A. M., & Saracevic, T. (1966). The measurability of relevance. Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute (pp. 225-234). Washington, DC: American Documentation Institute.
130. Rees, A. M., & Schulz, D. G. (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching (2 vols., NSF Contract No. C-423). Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
131. Regazzi, J. J. (1988). Performance measures for information retrieval systems - An experimental approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39, 235-251.
132. Resnick, A. (1961). Relative effectiveness of document titles and abstracts for determining relevance of documents. Science, 134(3483), 1004-1006.
133. Resnick, A., & Savage, T. R. (1964). The consistence of human judgments of relevance. American Documentation, 15(2), 93-95.
134. Robertson, S. E. (1977). The probabilistic character of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 13, 247-251.
135. Rorvig, M. E. (1985). An experiment in human preferences for information in a simulated information system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of California, School of Library and Information Studies, Berkeley, CA.
136. Rorvig, M. E. (1987). The substitutibility of images for textual descriptions of archival materials. In K. D. Lehmann & H. Strohl-Goebel (Eds.), The applications of micro-computers in information, documentation and libraries (pp. 407-415). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
137. Rorvig, M. E. (1988). Psychometric measurement and information retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 23, 157-189.
138. Rorvig, M. E. (1990). The simple scalability of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 590-598.
139. Sandore, B. (1990). Online searching: What measures satisfaction? Library and Information Science Research, 12, 33-54.
140. Saracevic, T. (1969). Comparative effects of titles, abstracts and full texts on relevance judgements, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Washington, DC (pp. 293-299).
141. Saracevic, T. (1970a). The concept of "relevance" in information science: A historical review, In T. Saracevic (Ed.), Introduction to information science, (pp. 111-151). New York: R. R. Bowker.
142. Saracevic, T. (1970b). On the concept of relevance in information science, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleaveland, Ohio.
143. Saracevic, T. (1970c). Ten years of relevance experimentation: A summary and synthesis of conclusions. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 33-36).
144. Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26, 321-343.
145. Saracevic, T. (1976). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Advances in Librarianship, 6, 79-138.
146. Saracevic, T., & Kantor, P. (1988a). A study of information seeking and retrieving. II. Users, questions, and effectiveness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39, 177-196.
147. Saracevic, T., & Kantor, P. (1988b). A study of information seeking and retrieving. III. Searchers, searches, and overlap. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39, 197-216.
148. Saracevic, T., Kantor, P., Charmis, A., & Trivison, D. (1988). A study of information seeking and retrieving. I. Background and methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39, 161-176.
149. Schamber, L. (1991a). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Washington, DC (pp. 126-133). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
150. Schamber, L. (1991b). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
151. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29, 3-48.
152. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M. B., & Nilan, M. S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6), 755-776.
153. Sebastiani, F. (1994). A probabilistic terminological logic for information retrieval. ACM SIGIR, 17th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Dublin, Ireland (pp. 122-130). London: Springer Verlag.
154. Shirey, D. L., & Kurfeerst, H. (1967). Relevance predictability. II Data reduction. In A. Kent et al., (Eds.), Electronic handling of information: Testing and evaluation (pp. 187-198). Washington, DC: Thompson Book Co.
155. Smithson, S. (1994). Information retrieval evaluation in practice: A case study approach. Information Processing & Management, 30, 205-221.
156. Soergel, D. (1994). Indexing and retrieval performance: The logical evidence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 589-599.
157. Su, L. T. (1991). An investigation to find appropriate measures for evaluating interactive information retrieval, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.
158. Su, L. T. (1992). Evaluation measures for interactive information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 28(4), 503-516.
159. Su, L. T. (1994). The relevance of recall and precision in user evalua-tion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 207-217.
160. Sutton, S. A. (1994). The role of attorney mental models of law in case relevance determinations: An exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 186-200.
161. Swanson, D. R. (1977). Information retrieval as a trial-and-error process. Library Quarterly, 47(2), 128-148.
162. Swanson, D. R. (1986). Subjective versus objective relevance in bibliographic retrieval systems. Library Quarterly, 56, 389-398.
163. Swanson, D. R. (1988). Historical note: Information retrieval and the future of an illusion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(2), 92-98.
164. Taube, M. (1955). Storage and retrieval of information by means of the association of ideas. American Documentation, 6(1), 1-17.
165. Taube, M. (1965). A note on the pseudo-mathematics of relevance. American Documentation, 16(2), 69-72.
166. Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College and Research Libraries, 29, 178-194.
167. Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
168. Tessier, J. A. (1981). Toward the understanding of user satisfaction: A multivariate study of user evaluations of computer-based literature searches in medical libraries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
169. Tessier, J. A., Crouch, W. W., & Atherton, P. (1977). New measures of user satisfaction with computer-based literature searches. Special Libraries, 68(11), 383-389.
170. Thomas, N. P. (1993). Information seeking and the nature of relevance: Ph.D. student orientation as an exercise in information retrieval. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH, pp. 126-130. Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
171. Thompson, C. W. N. (1973). The functions of abstracts in the initial screening of technical documents by users. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 270-276.
172. Tiamiyu, A. M., & Ajiferuke, I. Y. (1988). A total relevance and document interaction effects model for the evaluation of information retrieval processes. Information Processing & Management, 24(4), 391-404.
173. Urquhart, D. J. (1959). Use of scientific periodicals. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, (Vol. 1, pp. 277-290). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
174. van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1986a). A new theoretical framework for information retrieval. ACM SIGIR, International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Pisa, Italy (p. 200).
175. van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1986b). A non-classical logic for information retrieval. The Computer Journal, 29, 481-485.
176. van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1989). Towards an information logic. ACM SIGIR, 12th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Cambridge, MA, (pp. 77-86).
177. Vickery, B. C. (1959a). The structure of information retrieval systems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information (Vol. 2, pp. 1275-1290) Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
178. Vickery, B. C. (1959b). Subject analysis for information retrieval. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information (Vol. 2, pp. 855-865). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
179. Wang, P. (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems (Doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, College of Library and Information Science, College Park, MD. (University Microfilms No. AAI9514595).
180. Weis, R. L., & Katter, R. V. (1967). Multidimensional scaling of documents and surrogates (Tech. Memorandum SP-2713, 29 p.). Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development Corporation.
181. Wilson, P. (1968). Relevance. In Two kinds of power (pp. 45-54). Berkeley: University of California Press.
182. Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9(8), 457-471.
183. Wilson, P. (1978). Some fundamental concepts of information retrieval. Drexel Library Quarterly, 14, 10-24.
184. Wilson, P. (1993). Communication efficiency in research and development. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44, 376-382.
185. Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.