Dimensions of relevance

Information Processing and Management

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 533-550

  Cosijn, Erica ^a   Ingwersen, Peter ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

^b ROYAL SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION USE;

SOCIO-COGNITIVE RELEVANCE;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 0033871276     PISSN: 03064573     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00072-2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Barry C.L. User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45:(3):1994;149-159.
2. Borlund P. Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation. 56:(1):2000;. in press.
3. Borlund P., Ingwersen P. Measures of relative relevance and ranked half-life: performance indicators for interactive IR. Croft B.W., Moffat A., van Rijsbergen C.J., Wilkinson R., Zobel H. Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development of Information Retrieval. 1998;324-331 ACM Press/York Press, Melbourne, Australia.
4. Bush V. As we may think. Atlantic Monthly. 176:(1):1945;101-108.
5. Chen H., Dahr V. Online query refinement on information retrieval systems. Vidick L.-L. Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development of Information Retrieval. 1990;115-132 Bruxelles University Press, Bruxelles, Belgium.
6. Christensen F.H., Ingwersen P., Wormell I. Online determination of the journal impact factor and its international properties. Scientometrics. 40:(3):1997;529-540.
7. Cronin B. The citation process: the role and significance of citations in scientific communication. 1984;Taylor Graham, London.
8. Greisdorf H., Spink A. Regions of relevance: approaches to measurement for enhanced precision. Landani M. Draft Proceedings of the 21st Colloquium on Information Retrieval, Glasgow. 1999.
9. Hjørland B. Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science. 1997;Greenwood Press, London.
10. Ingwersen P. Search procedures in the library analysed from a cognitive point of view. Journal of Documentation. 38:1982;165-191.
11. Ingwersen P. Information retrieval interaction. 1992;Taylor Graham, London.
12. Ingwersen P. Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation. 52:(1):1996;3-50.
13. Ingwersen P., Borlund P. Information transfer viewed as interactive cognitive processes. Ingwersen P., Pors N.O. Information science: integration in perspective. 1996;219-232 Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark.
14. Mizzaro S. Relevance: the whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48:(9):1997;810-832.
15. Mizzaro S. How many relevances in information retrieval? Interacting with Computers. 10:1998;305-322.
16. Ørom A. Information science, historical changes and social aspects: a Nordic outlook. Journal of Documentation. 56:(1):2000;12-26.
17. Pors N.O. Information retrieval, experimental models and statistical analysis. Journal of Documentation. 56:(1):2000;55-70.
18. Reid J. A new, task-orientated paradigm for information retrieval: implications for evaluation of information retrieval systems. Aparac T., et al. Proceedings of the CoLIS 3 Third International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science: Digital Libraries. Interdisciplinary Concepts, Challenges and Opportunities, Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb. 1999;97-108.
19. Saracevic T. Relevance: a review of and framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 26:1975;321-343.
20. Saracevic T. Relevance reconsidered '96. Ingwersen P., Pors N.O. Information science: integration in perspective. 1996;201-218 Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark.
21. Schamber L. Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 29:1994;3-48.
22. Schamber L., Eisenberg M.B., Nilan M.S. A re-examination of relevance: toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing and Management. 26:(6):1990;755-776.
23. Searle J.R. Intentionality and its place in nature. Synthese. 61:1984;3-16.
24. Spink A., Greisdorf H., Bateman J. From highly relevant to not relevant: examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing and Management. 34:(5):1998;599-624.
25. Tague-Sutcliffe J. Measuring information: an information service perspective. 1995;Academic Press, San Diego.
26. Voorhees E.M. Variations in relevance judgements and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. Croft B.W., Moffat A., van Rijsbergen C.J., Wilkinson R., Zobel H. Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development of Information Retrieval. 1998;315-323 ACM Press/York Press, Melbourne, Australia.
27. Wang P. Users' information needs at different stages of a research project: a cognitive view. Vakkari P., et al. Information seeking in context. 1997;307-318 Taylor Graham, London.
28. Wang P., White M.D. A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50:(2):1999;98-114.