Relevance: An interdisciplinary and information science perspective

Informing Science

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 67-71

  Greisdorf, Howard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Degrees of relevance; Information evaluation; Information retrieval; Information science; Relevance

Indexed keywords

EID: 11244300574     PISSN: 15214672     EISSN: 15214672     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.28945/579     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Allen, B. L. (1996). Information tasks: Toward a user-centered approach to information systems. New York, NY: Academic Press.
2. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1958). Summary of Area 6 Discussion. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, Washington, DC. (pp.1402).
3. Barry, C. L. & Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processin & Management, 34(2/3), 219-236.
4. Bates, M. J. (1996). Document familiarity, relevance and Bradford's Law: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 5. Information Processing & Management, 32(6), 697-707.
5. Belkin, N. J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information Science: Principles and Practice, 16(1), 11 16.
6. Brooks, T. A. (1997). The relevance aura of bibliographic records. Information Processing & Management, 33(1), 69-80.
7. Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (1997). Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
8. Caudra, C. A. & Katter, R. V. (1967). Opening the black box of relevance. Journal of Documentation, 23(4), 291-303.
9. th ed. New York, NY: Mac millan Publishing Co.
10. Cooper, W. S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage & Retrieval, 7, 19-37.
11. Daniels, P. J. (1986). Cognitive models in information retrieval: An evaluative review. Journal of Documentation, 42(4), 272-304.
12. Eisenberg, M. B. (1988). Measuring relevance judgments. Information Processing & Management, 24(4), 373-389.
13. Ellis, D. (1992). The physical and cognitive paradigms in information retrieval research. Journal of Documentation, 48(1), 45-64.
14. Fairthorne, R. A. (1958). Summary of Area 6 Discussion. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, Washington, DC, 1406.
15. Foskett, D. J. (1972). A note on the concept of "relevance." Information Storage & Retrieval, 8, 77-78.
16. Gluck, M. (1996). Exploring the relationship between user satisfaction and relevance in information systems. Information Processing & Management, 32(1), 89-104.
17. Goffman, W. (1964). On relevance as a measure. Information Storage & Retrieval, 2, 201-203.
18. st British Computer Society Information Retrieval Sub Group Colloquium (BCS-IRSG) on IR Research, April 19-20, University of Strathclyde, Scotland, UK. (pp. 1-33).
19. Harter, S. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 602-615.
20. Helson, H. (1971). Adaptation-level theory: 1970 and after. In Appley, M. H. ed., Adaptation-Level Theory: A Symposium. New York, NY: Academic Press.
21. Hillman, D. J. (1964). The notion of relevance. American Documentation, January, 26-34.
22. Howard, D. L. (1994). Pertinence as reflected in personal constructs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 172-185.
23. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1), 3-50.
24. Janes, J. W. (1991). The binary nature of dichotomous relevance judgments: A study of users' perceptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(10), 745-756,
25. Janes, J. W. (1993). On the distribution of relevance judgments. Proceedings of ASIS 93: Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, October 24-28, Columbus, Ohio, 30 (pp. 104-114).
26. 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.
27. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (vol. 1). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
28. Kemp, D. A. (1974). Relevance, pertinence and information system development. Information Storage & Retrieval, 10, 37-47.
29. Milech, D. & Finucane, M. (1998). Decision support and behavioral decision theory. In Implicit and Explicit Mental Processes, Kirsner et. al. (eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Mizzaro, S. (1998). How many relevances in information retrieval? Interacting with Computers, 10, 303-320.
31. Morrow, D. & Greenspan, S. (1989). Situation models and information accessibility. In Sharkey, N. E. (ed.), Models of Cognition: A Review of Cognitive Science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
32. O'Connor, J. (1967). Relevance disagreements and unclear request forms. American Documentation, July, 165-177.
33. O'Neill, R. F. (1960). Theories of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
34. Overton, W. F. (1986). Competence and procedures: Constraints on the development of logical reasoning. In Overton, W. F. ed., Reasoning, Necessity, and Logic: Developmental Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
35. Pao, M. L. (1993). Term and citation retrieval: A field study. Information Processing &Management, 29(1), 95-112.
36. Park, T. K. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: an empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63(3), 318-351.
37. Ricco, R. B. (1986). Necessity and the logic of entailment. In Overton, W. F. ed., Reasoning, Necessity, and Logic: Developmental Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
38. Rees, A. M. (1966). The relevance of relevance to the testing and evaluation of document retrieval systems. Aslib Proceedings, 18(11), 316-324.
39. Rees, A. M., & Schultz, D. G. (1967). A field experiment approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching: Final report. Volume I: Cleveland, OH:CWRU, School of Library Service, Center for Documentation and Communication Research. 305p. NTIS: PB176080.
40. Saracevic, T. (1969). Comparative effects of titles, abstracts, and full texts on relevance judgments. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 6, 293-299.
41. 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(6), 321-343.
42. Saracevic, T., Kantor, P., Chamis, A. Y. & Trivison, D. (1988). A study of information seeking and retrieving. 1. Background and methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(3), 161-176.
43. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 29, 3-48. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science.
44. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M. B., & Nilan, M. S. (1990). A reexamination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6), 755-776.
45. Schutz, A. (1970). Reflections on the Problem of Relevance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
46. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Spink, A. & Greisdorf, H. (1997). Users' partial relevance judgments during online searching. Online & CD-ROM Review, 21(5), 271-280.
48. th National Online Meeting, May, 1999, New York.
49. Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., & Bateman, J. (1998a). Examining different regions of relevance: From highly Relevant to not relevant. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, P.A. October 1998 (pp. 3-12).
50. Spink, A., Greisdorf, H. & Bateman, J. (1998b). From highly relevant to not relevant: Examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 34(5), 599-622.
51. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Cognitive Psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
52. Su, L. T. (1998). Value of search results as a whole as the best single measure of information retrieval performance. Information Processing & Management, 34(5), 557-579.
53. Taube, M. (1965). A note on the pseudo-mathematics of relevance. American Documentation, 16(2), 69-72.
54. Thong, J. Y. L. & Yap, C. (1996). Information systems effectiveness: A user satisfaction approach. Information Processing & Management, 32(5), 601-610.
55. Tiamyu, M. A. & Ajiferuke, I. Y. (1988). A total relevance and document interaction effects model for the evaluation of information retrieval processes. Information Processing & Management, 24(4), 391-404.
56. Wallis, P. & Thom, J. A. (1996). Relevance judgements for assessing recall. Information Processing & Management, 32(3), 273-286.
57. Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage & Retrieval, 9, 457-471.