Measuring recall

Journal of Information Science

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 409-417

  Frické, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS; WORLD WIDE WEB;

INFORMATION RECALL; NEEDLE HIDING METHOD;

ONLINE SEARCHING;

EID: 0032303052     PISSN: 01655515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016555159802400604     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. D.C. Blair, STAIRS redux: thoughts on the STAIRS evaluation, ten years after, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47(1) (1996) 4-22.
2. S.J. Clarke and P. Willett, Estimating the recall performance of Web search engines, Aslib Proceedings 49(7) (1997) 184-189.
3. C.W. Cleverdon, An investigation into the methodology of evaluation techniques based on a test of the MEDLARS system at the National Library of Medicine. In: Application for Grant to the National Science Foundation (1965). See [11, p. 276].
4. C.W. Cleverdon, J. Mills and E.M. Keen, Factors Determining the Performance of Indexing Systems (Aslib, Cranfield, 1966).
5. W.S. Cooper, The paradoxical role of unexamined documents in the evaluation of retrieval effectiveness, Information Processing and Management 12(5) (1976) 367-375.
6. D. Ellis, The dilemma of measurement in information retrieval research, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47(1) (1996) 23-36.
7. M.B. Eisenberg, Measuring relevance judgments, Information Processing and Management 24(4) (1988) 373-389.
8. D. Harman, Overview of the Second Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-2), Information Processing and Management 31(3) (1995) 271-289.
9. S.P. Harter, Variations in relevance assessments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47(1) (1996) 37-49.
10. S.P. Harter and C.A. Hert, Evaluation of information retrieval systems: approaches, issues and methods. In: M.E. Williams (ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 32 (Information Today, Inc, Medford, NJ, 1997), pp. 3-94.
11. M. Keen, Cyril W. Cleverdon: Bibliography, Journal of Documentation 54(3) (1998) 274-280.
12. F.W. Lancaster, Evaluation of the Medlars Demand Search Service (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Washington, DC, 1968).
13. S. Lawrence and C. Lee Giles, Searching the World Wide Web, Science 280 (1998) 98-100.
14. D. Miller and R.T. Dattola, Methods for estimating the number of relevant documents in a collection, Information Processing and Management 18(4) (1982) 179-191.
15. S.E. Robertson, Retrieval and relevance: on the evaluation of IR systems, The ISI Lazerow Lecture, University of California, Los Angeles (1993). Available at: http://web.soi.city.ac.uk/research/cisr/ser/ucla/paper.html.
16. G. Salton, The state of retrieval system evaluation, Information Processing and Management 28(4) (1992) 441-449.
17. T. Saracevik, Relevance reconsidered '96. In: P. Ingwersen and N.O. Pore (eds), CoLIS 2: Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science: Integration in Perspective (Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1996), pp. 201-218.
18. L. Schamber, Relevance and information behavior. In: M.E. Williams (ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29 (Learned Information, Inc, Medford, NJ, 1994), pp. 3-18.
19. J. Tague-Sutcliffe, The pragmatics of information retrieval experiments, revisited, Information Processing and Management 28(4) (1992) 467-490.
20. J. Tague-Sutcliffe, Measuring Information: An Information Services Perspective (Academic Press, San Diego, 1995).