The concept of relevance in IR

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 54, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 913-925

  Borlund, Pia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

MULTIDIMENSIONALITY;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 0042173035     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.10286     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Barry, C., & Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34, 219-236.
2. Barry, C.L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 149-159.
3. Bateman, J. (1998). Changes in relevance criteria: A longitudinal study. In: ASIS Proceedings. 1998 (pp. 23-32).
4. Belkin, N.J. (1977). Internal knowledge and external information. In M. de Mey, R. Pinxten, M. Poriau, & F. Vandamme (Eds.). International workshop on the cognitive viewpoint (pp. 187-194). Ghent: University of Ghent.
5. Belkin, N.J. (1978). Progress in documentation: Information concepts for information science. Journal of Documentation, 43, 55-85.
6. Borlund, P., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 53, 225-250.
7. Borlund, P., & Ingwersen, P. (1998). Measures of relative relevance and ranked half-life: Performance indicators for interactive IR. In B.W. Croft, A. Moffat, C.J. van Rijsbergen, R. Wilkinson, & J. Zobel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGIR conference on research and development of information retrieval; Melbourne, Australia (pp. 324-331). ACM Press/York Press.
8. Borlund, P. (2000a). Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Doctoral dissertation, Åbo Akademi University. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
9. Borlund, P. (2000b). Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 56, 71-90.
10. Brookes, B.C. (1975a). The fundamental problem of information science. In V. Horsnell (Ed.), Informatics 2 (pp. 42-49). London: Aslib.
11. Brookes, B.C. (1975b). The fundamental equation of information science. In Problems of information science, FID 530 (pp. 115-130). Moscow: VINITI.
12. Brookes, B.C. (1977). The seveloping cognitive viewpoint in information science. In M. de Mey, R. Pinxten, M. Poriau, & F. Vandamme (Eds.), International workshop on the cognitive viewpoint (pp. 195-203). Ghent: University of Ghent.
13. Brookes, B.C. (1980). The foundation of information science: Part I: Philosophical aspects. Journal of Information Science: Principles and Practice, 2, 125-133.
14. 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.
15. Campbell, I., & van Rijsbergen, K. (1996). The ostensive model of developing information needs. In P. Ingwersen & N.O. Pors (Eds.), Proceedings of CoLIS 2, second international conference on conceptions of library and information science: Integration in perspective; Copenhagen (pp. 251-268). Copenhagen: Royal School of Librarianship.
16. Cleverdon, C.W. (1960). Aslib Cranfield research project: Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems. Cranfield: The College of Aeronautics.
17. Cooper, W.S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7, 19-37.
18. Cox, E.P. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407-422.
19. Cosijn, E., & Ingwersen, P. (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36, 533-550.
20. Cuadra, C.A., & Katter, R.V. (1967a). Experimental studies of relevance judgments: Final report. Volume 1: Project summary (TM-3520/001/00). Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corp.
21. Cuadra, C.A., & Katter, R.V. (1967b). Opening the black box of "relevance." Journal of Documentation, 23, 291-303.
22. De Mey, M. (1980), The relevance of the cognitive paradigm for information science. In O. Harbo, & L. Kajberg (Eds.), Theory and application of information research. Proceedings of the 2nd international research forum on information science (pp. 49-61). London: Mansell.
23. Doyle, L.B. (1963). Is Relevance an adequate criterion in retrieval system evaluation? Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute; 26th annual meeting (pp. 199-200). Chicago, IL.
24. Eisenberg, M., & Barry, C. (1988). Order effects: A study of the possible influence of presentation order on user judgments of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39, 293-300.
25. Eisenberg, M., & Hu, X. (1987). Dichotomous relevance judgments and the evaluation of information systems. In: ASIS Proceedings (pp. 66-69).
26. Eisenberg, M., & Schamber, L. (1988). Relevance: The Search for a definition. In ASIS Proceedings (pp. 164-168).
27. Eisenberg, M.B. (1988). Measuring relevance judgments. Information Processing & Management, 24, 373-389.
28. 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, 124-134.
29. Green, R. (1995). Topical relevance relationships: 1. Why topic matching fails. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 646-653.
30. Gull, C.D. (1956). Seven years of work on the organization of materials in the special library. American Documentation, 7, 320-329.
31. Harter, S.P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 602-615.
32. Hertzum, M., Andersen, H.H.K., Andersen, V., & Hansen, C.B. (2002). Trust in information sources: Seeking information from people, documents, and virtual agents. Interacting with Computers, 14(5), 575-599.
33. Hjørland, B. (1997). Information seeking and subject representation: An activity-theoretical approach to information science. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
34. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52, 3-50.
35. Jacoby, J.W., & Matell, M.S. (1971). Three-point Likert scales are good enough. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 495-500.
36. Janes, J.W. (1994). Other people's judgements: A comparison of users' and others' judgements of document relevance, topicality and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 160-171.
37. Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2000). IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In N.J. Belkin, P. Ingwersen, & M.-K. Leong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGIR conference on research and development of information retrieval, Athens, Greece (pp. 41-48). New York: ACM Press.
38. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
39. Lancaster, W.F. (1969). Medlars: Report on the evaluation of its operating efficiency. American Documentation, 20, 119-142.
40. Lemon, N. (1973). Attitudes and their measurement. London: B.T. Batsford.
41. Mizzaro, S. (1998). How many relevances in information retrieval? Interacting with Computers, 10, 303-320.
42. Pao, M.L. (1993). Term and citation retrieval: A field study. Information Processing & Management, 29, 95-112.
43. Park, T.K. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63, 318-351.
44. 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.
45. Rees, A.M., & Schultz, D.G. (1967). A field experiment approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching, 2 vols. Cleveland, OH: Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University.
46. Reid, J. (1999). A New, task-oriented paradigm for information retrieval: Implications for evaluation of information retrieval systems. In T. Aparac, T. Saracevic, P. Ingwersen, & P. Vakkari (Eds.), Proceedings of CoLIS 3, third international conference on the conceptions of library and information science: Digital libraries: Interdisciplinary concepts, challenges and opportunities, Dubrovnik. Zagreb: Zavod za informacijske studije Odsjeka za informacijske znanosti: Filozofski fakultet (pp. 97-108). Lovke: Naklada Benja.
47. Robertson, S.E., & Hancock-Beaulieu, M.M. (1992). On the evaluation of IR systems. Information Processing & Management, 28, 457-466.
48. Robins, D. (1997). Shifts of focus in information retrieval interaction. In ASIS Proceedings (pp. 123-134).
49. Saracevic, T. (1969). Comparative effects of titles, abstracts and full texts on relevance judgments. In ASIS Proceedings (pp. 293-299).
50. 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.
51. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance Reconsidered '96. In P. Ingwersen, & N.O. Pors (Eds.), Proceedings of CoLIS 2, second international conference on conceptions of library and information science: Integration in perspective, Copenhagen (pp. 201-218). Copenhagen: Royal School of Librarianship.
52. Saracevic, T., & Su, L. (1989). Modelling and measuring user-intermediary-computer interaction online searching: Design of study. In ASIS Proceedings (pp. 75-80).
53. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST) (pp. 3-48). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
54. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Nilan, M.S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26, 755-775.
55. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56. Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., & Bateman, J. (1998). From highly relevant to not relevant: Examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 34, 599-621.
57. Su, L.T. (1992). Evaluation measure for interactive information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 28, 503-516.
58. Swanson, D.R. (1977). Information retrieval as a trial-and-error process. Library Quarterly, 47, 128-148.
59. Swanson, D.R. (1986). Subjective versus objective relevance in bibliographic retrieval systems. Library Quarterly, 56, 389-398.
60. Tang, R., Shaw, W.M., Jr., & Vevea, J.L. (1999). Towards the identification of the optimal number of relevance categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 254-264.
61. Tang, R., & Solomon, P. (1998). Towards an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgments: An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management, 34, 237-256.
62. Thorne, R.G. (1955). The efficiency of subject catalogues and the cost of information searches. Journal of Documentation, 11, 130-148.
63. Vakkari, P., & Hakala, N. (2000). Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. Journal of Documentation, 56, 540-562.
64. van Rijsbergen, C.J. (1979). Information retrieval, 2nd ed. London: Butterworths.
65. Voorhees, E.M. (2001). Evaluation by highly relevant documents. In W.B. Croft, D.J. Harper, D.H. Kraft, & J. Zobel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGIR conference on research and development of information retrieval, New Orleans, LA (pp. 41-48). New York: ACM Press.
66. Voorhees, E.M. (1998). Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. In B.C. Croft, A. Moffat, C.J. van Rijsbergen, R., Wilkinson, & J. Zobel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Melbourne, Australia (pp. 315-323). ACM Press.
67. Voorhees, E.M. (2000). Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. Information Processing & Management, 36, 697-716.
68. Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9, 457-469.