Nodes of Topicality: Modeling User Notions of on Topic Documents

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 54, Issue 14, 2003, Pages 1296-1304

  Greisdorf, Howard ^a   O'Connor, Brian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY; INFORMATION SEARCH;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS; ONLINE SEARCHING;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

EID: 0344875591     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.10331     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Arkes, H.R., & Hammond, K.R. (1986). General introduction. In H.R. Arkes & K.R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgement and decision-making: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
2. Barry, C.L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 149-159.
3. Bateman, J.A. (1998). Modeling changes in end-user relevance criteria: An information seeking study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
4. Borlund, P., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 53(3), 225-250.
5. Boyce, B. (1982). Beyond topicality: A two stage view of relevance and the retrieval process. Information Processing & Management, 18(3), 105-109.
6. Bruza, P.D., Song, D.W., & Wong, K.F. (2000). Aboutness from a commonsense perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(12), 1090-1105.
7. Cooper, W.S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage & Retrieval, 7, 19-37.
8. Greisdorf, H. (2003). Relevance thresholds: A multi-stage predictive model of how users evaluate information. Information Processing & Management, 39, 403-423.
9. Harter, S.P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 602-615.
10. Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1994). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
11. Hjorland, B. (2001). Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content ... and relevance, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 52(9), 774-778.
12. Huibers, T.W.C., & Wondergem, B.C.M. (1998). Towards an axiomatic aboutness theory for information retrieval. In F. Crestani, M. Lalmas, & C.J. van Rijsbergen (Eds.), Information retrieval, uncertainty and logics: Advanced models for the representation and retrieval of information. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Janes, J.W. (1994). Other people's judgments: A comparison of users' and others' judgments of document relevance, topicality and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 160-171.
14. Katter, R.V. (1968). The influence of scale form on relevance judgments. Information Storage & Retrieval, 4, 1-11.
15. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
16. Lee, H.N. (1973). Percepts, concepts & theoretic knowledge. Memphis, TN: Memphis State University Press.
17. Maron, M.E. (1977). On indexing, retrieval and the meaning of about. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28 (January), 38-43.
18. Park, T.K. (1994). Towards 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.
19. Reynolds, H.T. (1977). The analysis of cross classifications. New York: The Free Press.
20. Reynolds, H.T. (1984). Analysis of nominal data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
21. Robertson, S.E., Maron, M.E., & Cooper, W.S. (1982). Probability of relevance: A unification of two competing models for document retrieval. Information Technology: Research and Development, 1, 1-21.
22. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance reconsidered '96. Second international conference on conceptions of library and information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 201-216).
23. Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in multimedia information seeking and use situations. ASIS '91: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science 54th annual meeting (pp. 126-133). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
24. Schamber, L., & Eisenberg, M. (1988). Relevance: The search for a definition. ASIS '88: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science 51st annual meeting. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
25. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M., & Nilan, M.S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6), 755-776.
26. Vakkari, P., & Hakala, N. (2000). Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. Journal of Documentation, 56(5), 540-562.
27. Wilson, P. (1977). Public knowledge, private ignorance. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Inc.