An analysis of two approaches in information retrieval: From frameworks to study designs

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 58, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 971-986

  Järvelin, Kalervo ^a  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; USER INTERFACES;

HYPOTHESIS;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 34249666083     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20589     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Allen, B.L. (1991). Cognitive research in information science: Implications for design. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp. 3-37). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
2. Belkin, N.J. (1984). Cognitive models and information transfer. Social Science Information Studies, 4(2/3), 111-129.
3. Belkin, N.J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information Science: Principles and Practice, 16(1), 11-15.
4. Belkin, N.J., Borgman, C.L., Brooks, H.M., Bylander, T., Croft, W.B., Daniels, P. et al. (1987). Distributed expert-based information systems: An interdisciplinary approach. Information Processing & Management, 23(5), 395-409.
5. Belkin, N.J., Cool, C, Stein, A., & Thiel, U. (1995). Cases, scripts, and information seeking strategies: On the design of interactive information retrieval systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 9(3), 379-395.
6. Belkin, N.J., & Croft, W.B. (1987). Retrieval techniques. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 22, pp. 37-61). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
7. Belkin, N.J., Marchetti, P., & Cool, C. (1993). BRAQUE: Design an interface to support user interaction in information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 29(3), 325-344.
8. Belkin, N.J., Oddy, R.N., & Brooks, H.M. (1982). Ask for information retrieval: Part 1. Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.
9. Bell, D.J., & Ruthven, I. (2004). Searchers' assessments of task complexity for Web searching. In S. McDonald & J. Tait (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Information Retrieval (pp. 57-71). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
10. Borlund, P. (2000). Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 56(1), 71-90.
11. Borlund, P., & Ingwersen, P. (1998). Measures of relative relevance and ranked half-life: Performance indicators for interactive IR. In W.B. Croft, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 324-331). New York: ACM.
12. Buckley, C., & Salton, G. (1995). Optimization of relevance feedback weights. In E.A. Fox, P. Ingwersen, & R. Fidel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 351-357). New York: ACM.
13. Buckley, C., & Voorhees, E. (2004). Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information. In K. Jarvelin, J. Allan, P. Bruza, & M. Sanderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 25-32). New York: ACM.
14. Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific research. Heidelberg: Springer.
15. Cohen, M., & Nagel, E. (1936). An introduction to logic and scientific method. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.
16. Cosijn, E. (2003). Relevance judgements in information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria, Department of Information Science, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
17. Cosijn, E., & Ingwersen, P. (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36, 533-550.
18. Denning, P.J. (1997). Computer science: The discipline. In A. Ralston & D. Hemmendinger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of computer science (4th ed.). Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/PUBS/cs99.pdf
19. Dervin, B. (1999). On studying information seeking methodologically: The implications of connecting metatheory to method. Information Processing & Management, 35, 727-750.
20. Ellis, D. (1996). Progress and problems in information retrieval. London: Library Association.
21. Engelbart, D. (1962). Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.
22. Fidel, R., & Soergel, D. (1983). Factors affecting online bibliographic retrieval: A conceptual framework for research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(3), 163-180.
23. Hersh, W., & Over, P. (2000). TREC-9 Interactive Track Report. In E.M. Voorhees & D.K. Harman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-9) (pp. 41-50). Retrieved October, 24, 2005, from http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec9/papers/t9irep.pdf
24. Hjörland, B. (2005). Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 130-155.
25. Hull, D. (1993). Using statistical testing in the evaluation of retrieval experiments. In R. Korfhage, E.M. Rasmussen, & P. Willett (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 349-338). New York: ACM.
26. Ingwersen, P. (1982). Search procedures in the library analyzed from the cognitive point of view. Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 165-191.
27. Ingwersen, P. (1992). Information retrieval interaction. London: Taylor Graham.
28. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1), 3-50.
29. Ingwersen, P., & Järvelin, K. (2005). The turn: Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Heidelberg: Springer.
30. Järvelin, K., & Ingwersen, P. (2004). Information seeking research needs extension toward tasks and technology. Information Research, 10(1), No. 212. Retrieved January 16, 2005, from http://InformationR.net/ir/10- 1/paper212.html
31. Järvelin, K., & Wilson, T.D. (2003). On conceptual models for information seeking and retrieval research. Information Research, 9(1), No. 163. Retrieved January 16, 2005, from http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper163.html
32. Joachims, T. (2002). Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In O.R. Zaïane, R. Goebel, D. Hand, D. Keim, & R. Ng (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (pp. 133-142). New York: ACM.
33. Kekäläinen, J., & Järvelin, K. (2002). Evaluating information retrieval systems under the challenges of interaction and multi-dimensional dynamic relevance. In H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen, & P. Vakkari (Eds.), Emerging Frameworks and Method: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS 4) (pp. 253-270). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
34. Kelly, D., Dollu, V.D., & Fu, X. (2005). The loquacious user: A document-independent source of terms for query expansion. In G. Marchionini, A. Moffat, J. Tait, R. Baeza-Yates, & N. Ziviani (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 457-464). New York: ACM.
35. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1993). Seeking meaning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
36. Larsen, B. (2004). References and citations in automatic indexing and retrieval systems - Experiments with the boomerang effect. Doctoral dissertation. Copenhagen: Department of Information Studies, Royal School of Library and Information Science. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from www.db.dk/dbi/samling/phd/birgerlarsen-phd.pdf
37. Pejtersen, A.M., & Fidel, R. (1999). A framework for work-centred evaluation and design: A case study of IR on the Web (Working Paper TR-1999-35). Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow, Department of Computing Science.
38. Robertson, S.E. (2000). On theoretical argument in information retrieval. SIGIR Forum, 34(1), 1-10.
39. Salton, G., & McGill, J.M. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. Sanderson, M., & Zobel, J. (2005). Information retrieval system evaluation: Effort, sensitivity, and reliability. In G. Marchionini, A. Moffat, J. Tait, R. Baeza-Yates, & N. Ziviani (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 162-169). New York: ACM.
41. Saracevic, T. (1992). Information science: Origin, evolution and relations. In P. Vakkari & B. Cronin (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (CoLIS 1) (pp. 5-27). London: Taylor Graham.
42. Saracevic, T. (1995). Evaluation of evaluation in information retrieval. In E.A. Fox, P. Ingwersen, & R. Fidel (Eds.), SIGIR '95: Proceedings of the 18th Annual international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 138-146). New York: ACM.
43. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance reconsidered '96. In P. Ingwersen, & N.O. Pors (Eds.), Information Science: Integration in Perspective: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS 2) (pp. 201-218). Copenhagen, Denmark: Royal School of Librarianship.
44. Saracevic, T. (1997). User lost: Reflections on the past, future, and limits of information science. ACM SIGIR Forum, 31(2), 16-27.
45. Saracevic, T., & Kantor, P. (1988). A study of information seeking and retrieving: II. Users, questions, and effectiveness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(3), 177-196.
46. Singhal, A. (2005). Challenges in running a commercial search engine. In G. Marchionini, A. Moffat, J. Tait, R. Baeza-Yates, & N. Ziviani (Eds.), SIGIR '05: Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in information Retrieval (p. 432). New York: ACM.
47. Sormunen, E. (2002). Liberal relevance criteria of TREC - Counting on negligible documents? In M. Beaulieu, R. Baeza-Yates, S.-H. Myaeng, & K. Järvelin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 320-330). New York: ACM.
48. Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). The pragmatics of information retrieval experimentation, revisited. Information Processing & Management, 28(4), 467-490.
49. Turpin, A., & Scholer, F. (2006). User performance versus precision measures for simple search tasks. In S. Dumais, E. Efthimiadis, D. Hawkins, & K. Jarvelin (Eds.), SIGIR '06: Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 11-18). New York: ACM.
50. Vakkari, P. (2001 ). A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: A summary and generalization of a longitudinal study. Journal of Documentation, 57(1), 44-60.
51. Voorhees, E. (2001). Evaluation by highly relevant documents. In W.B. Croft, A. Moffat, C.J. van Rijsbergen, R. Wilkinson, & J. Zobel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 74-82). New York: ACM.
52. Wagner, D., Berger, J., & Zelditch, M. (1992). A working strategy for constructing theories. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Metatheorizing (pp. 107-123). Newbury: Sage.
53. Wang, P., & Soergel, D. (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project: Study 1. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2), 115-133.
54. Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged. (1981). Springfield: Merriam.
55. White, R.W., Ruthven, I., & Jose, J.M. (2005). A study of factors affecting the utility of implicit relevance feedback. In G. Marchionini, A. Moffat, J. Tait, R. Baeza-Yates, & N. Ziviani (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 35-12). New York: ACM.
56. Wilson, T.D. (1999). Models in information behavior research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249-270.
57. Wirten, I.H., Moffat, A., & Bell, T.C. (1999). Managing gigabytes: Compressing and indexing documents and images, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Kaufmann.