Incorporating user search behavior into relevance feedback

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 54, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 529-549

  Ruthven, Ian ^a   Lalmas, Mounia ^b   Van Rijsbergen, Keith ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEEDBACK; MATHEMATICAL TECHNIQUES; ONLINE SEARCHING; QUERY LANGUAGES; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

RELEVANCE FEEDBACK (RF);

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS;

EID: 0037394334     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.10240     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Beaulieu, M. (1997). Experiments with interfaces to support query expansion. Journal of Documentation, 53(1), 8-19.
2. Borlund, P. (2000a). Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 56(1), 71-90.
3. Borlund, P. (2000b). Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. PhD thesis. Abo Akademi University.
4. Borlund, P., & Ingwersen, P. (1999). The application of work tasks in connection with the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems: empirical results. Mira '99. In S. Draper, M. Dunlop, I. Ruthven, & C.J. van Rijsbergen (Eds.), Electronic Workshops in Computing. British Computer Society.
5. Campbell, I. (2000). Interactive evaluation of the Ostensive model, using a new test-collection of images with multiple relevance assessments. Journal of Information Retrieval, 2(1), 89-114.
6. Campbell, I., & van Rijsbergen, C.J. (1996). Ostensive model of information needs. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science: Integration in Perspective (CoLIS 2) (pp. 251-268), Copenhagen.
7. Efthimiadis, E.N. (1995). User-choices: A new yardstick for the evaluation of ranking algorithms for interactive query expansion. Information Processing and Management, 31(4), 605-620.
8. Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information system design. Journal of Documentation, 45(3), 171-212.
9. Florance, V., & Marchionini, M. (1995). Information processing in the context of medical care. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 158-163), Seattle.
10. Haines, D., & Croft, W.B. (1993). Relevance feedback and inference networks. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 2-11), Pittsburgh.
11. Harman, D. (1992a). Relevance feedback and other query modification techniques. In W.B. Frakes & R. Baeza-Yates (Eds.), Information retrieval: Data structures & algorithms (chapter 11, pp. 241-263). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
12. Harman, D. (1992b). Relevance feedback revisited. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 1-10), Copenhagen.
13. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the search process: information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.
14. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1993). Principle for uncertainty for information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 339-355.
15. Over, P. (1998). TREC-6 interactive track report. Proceedings of the Sixth Text Retrieval Conference, Nist Special Publication 500-240 (pp. 73-82), Gaitherburg.
16. Porter, M., & Galpin, V. (1988). Relevance feedback in a public access catalogue for a research library: Muscat at the Scott Polar Research Institute. Program, 22(1), 1-20.
17. Robertson, S.E. (1990). On term selection for query expansion. Journal of Documentation, 46(4), 359-364.
18. Ruthven, I. (2001). Abduction, explanation and relevance feedback. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.
19. Ruthven, I. (2002). On the use of explanations as a mediating device for relevance feedback. Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Digital Libraries, ECDL 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Rome.
20. Ruthven, I., Lalmas, M., & van Rijsbergen, C.J. (2001a). Empirical investigations on query modification using abductive explanations. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 181-189), New Orleans.
21. Ruthven, I., Lalmas, M., & van Rijsbergen, C.J. (2001b). Combining and selecting characteristics of information use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(5), 378-396.
22. Ruthven, I., Tombros A., & Jose, J. (2001). A study on the use of summaries and summary-based query expansion for a question-answering task. Twenty-Third BCS European Annual Colloquium on Information Retrieval Research (ECIR 2001), Darmstadt.
23. Salton, G., & Buckley, C. (1990). Improving retrieval performance by relevance feedback. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(4), 288-297.
24. Robertson, S.E., & Sparck Jones, K. (1976). Relevance weighting of search terms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(3), 129-146.
25. Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., & Bateman, J. (1998). From highly relevant to not relevant: Examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing and Management, 34(5), 599-621.
26. Vakkari, P. (2000). Relevance and contributing information types of searched documents in task performance. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 2-9), Athens.
27. Vakkari, P. (2001). Cognition and changes of search terms and tactics during task performance. Proceedings of RIAO Conference on Content-Based Multimedia Information Access (pp. 894-907), Paris.
28. Voorhees, E.H., & Harman, D. (2000). Overview of the sixth text retrieval conference (TREC-6). Information Processing and Management, 36(1), 3-35.