Relevance similarity: An alternative means to monitor information retrieval systems

Biomedical Digital Libraries

Volumn 2, Issue , 2005, Pages

  Dong, Peng ^a   Loh, Marie ^a   Mondry, Adrian ^a  

^a BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23944486975     PISSN: 17425581     EISSN: 17425581     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-5581-2-6     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Peterson G, Aslani P, Williams KA: How do consumers search for and appraise information on medicines on the Internet? A qualitative study using focus groups. J Med Internet Res 2003, 5:e33.
2. Abbott KC, Oliver DK, Boal TR, Gadiyak G, Boocks C, Yuan CM, Welch PG, Poropatich RK: International use of an academic nephrology World Wide Web site: from medical information resource to business tool. Mil Med 2002, 167:326-330.
3. The ultimate search engine? Not Cell Biol 2005, 7:1.
4. Curro V, Buonuomo PS, Onesimo R, de Rose P, Vituzzi A, di Tanna GL, D'Atri A: A quality evaluation methodology of health webpages for non-professionals. Med Inform Internet Med 2004, 29:95-107.
5. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB: Evidence-Based Medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. London, Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
6. Castro J, Wolf F, Karras B, Tolentino H, Marcelo A, Maramba I: Critically Appraised Topics (CAT) peer-to-peer network. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003:806.
7. Dong P, Mondry A: Enhanced quality and quantity of retrieval of Critically Appraised Topics using the CAT Crawler. Med Inform Internet Med 2004, 29:43-55.
8. Hersh WR, Detmer WM, Prisse ME: Information-Retrieval Systems. In Medical Informatics Edited by: H SE and E PL. New York, Springer; 2001:539-572.
9. Schamber L: Relevance and information behavior. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology Volume 29. Edited by: Williams ME. Medford, NJ, Learned Information; 1994:33-48.
10. Barry CL: User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1994, 45:149-159.
11. Schamber L: Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment. Volume 28. Edited by: Griffiths JM. Medford, NJ:Learned Information; 1991:126-133.
12. Barry CL, Schamber L: Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: a cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management 1998, 34:219-236.
13. Lesk ME, Salton G: Relevance assessments and retrieval system evaluation. Information Storage and Retrieval 1968,4:343-359.
14. Cleverdon CW: The effect of variations in relevance assessments in comparative experimental tests of index languages. Cranfield, UK, Cranfield Institute of Technology; 1970.
15. Kazhdan TV: Effects of subjective expert evaluation of relevance on the performance parameters of a document-based information-retrieval system. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya 1979, 2:21-24.
16. Burgin R: Variations in relevance judgments and evaluation of retrieval performance. Information Processing & Management 1992, 28:619-627.
17. Voorhees EM: Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectives. Information Processing & Management 2000, 36:697-716.
18. Harter SP: Variations in relevance assessments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness, journal of the American Society for Information Science 1996, 47:37-49.
19. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV: High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990, 43:543-549.
20. Dong P, Wong LL, Ng S, Loh M, Mondry A: Quantitative evaluation of recall and precision of CAT Crawler, a search engine specialized on retrieval of Critically Appraised Topics. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2004, 4:21.
21. Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960, 20:37-46.
22. Fleiss JL: Measuring agreement between two judges on the presence or absence of a trait. Biometrics 1975, 31:651-659.
23. Saracevic T: The concept of relevance in information science: a historical view. In Introduction to information science Edited by: Saracevic T. New York, R.R.Bowker; 1970:111-151.
24. Hripcsak G, Heitjan DF: Measuring agreement in medical informatics reliability studies. J Biomed Inform 2002, 35:99-1 10.
25. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR: High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes, J Clin Epidemiol 1990, 43:551-558.
26. Cuadra CA, Katter RV: Experimental studies of relevance judgments. Santa Monica, CA, Systems Development Corporation; 1967.
27. Rees AM, Schultz DG: A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching. Cleveland, OH, Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western University; 1967.
28. Cleverdon CW: The Cranfield tests on index language devices. Aslib Proceedings 1967, 19:173-193.
29. Kekäläinen J, Järvelin K: Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2002, 53:1 120-1129.
30. Spink A, Greisdorf H, Bateman J: From highly relevant to non-relevant: Examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing & Management 1998, 34: 599-622.
31. Vakkari P, Hakala N: Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance, Jof Documentation 2000, 56:540-562.