An evidence perspective on topical relevance types and its implications for exploratory and task-based retrieval

Information Research

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2006, Pages

  Huang, Xiaoli ^a   Soergel, Dagobert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846026410     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13681613     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Barry, C. (1993). The identification of user criteria of relevance and document characteristics: beyond the topical approach to information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
2. Cross-language Evaluation Forum. Cross-language Speech Retrieval Track (2006). Data. Retrieved 7 September, 2006 from http://clef-clsr.umiacs.umd.edu/data.html
3. Cooper, W.S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7(1), 19-37.
4. Green, R. & Bean, C.A. (1995). Topical relevance relationships. I. Why topic matching fails. II. An exploratory study and preliminary typology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(9), 646653, 654-662.
5. Green, R. (1997). The role of relational structures in indexing for the humanities. Knowledge Organization, 24 (2), 72-83.
6. Gustman, S., Soergel, D., Oard, D., Byrne, W., Picheny, M., Ramabhadran, B. & Greenberg, D. (2002). Supporting access to large digital oral history archives. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, Portland, Oregon, USA. (pp. 18-27). New York, NY: ACM Press.
7. Huang, X. & Soergel, D. (2004). Relevance judges' understanding of topical relevance types: an explication of an enriched concept of topical relevance. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41, 156-167
8. Kadane, J.B. & Schum, D.A. (1996). A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9. Lawley, K., Soergel, D. & Huang, X. (2005). Relevance criteria used by teachers in selecting oral history materials. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42, 421-448
10. Lindlof, T.R. & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Lin, J. (2006) The role of knowledge in conceptual retrieval: A study in the domain of clinical medicine. Proceedings of the Annual international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 29, 99-106.
12. Mizzarro, S. (1997). Relevance: the whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(9), 810-832.
13. Niu, Y. & Hirst, G. (2004). Analysis of semantic classes in medical text for question answering. In Question Answering in Restricted Domains Proceedings of the ACL 2004 Workshop, (pp. 54-61). East Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved 20 November, 2006 from http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/acl2004/qarestricteddomain/pdf/niu.pdf
14. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance reconsidered. Peter Ingwersen & Niels Ole Pors (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (COLIS) 2. (pp. 201-218). Copenhagen: Royal School of Librarianship.
15. 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), 326-343.
16. Saracevic, T. (in press). Relevance: a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II. Advances in Librarianship 30.
17. 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.
18. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behaviour. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29, 3-48
19. Twining, W. (2003). Evidence as a multi-disciplinary subject. Law Probability and Risk, 2(2), 91-107.
20. Vakkari, P. (2003). Task-based information searching. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 413-464
21. Wang, P.& Soergel, D. (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(2), 115-133
22. Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9(8), 457-471.