A study of the assessment of relevance for the INEX'02 test collection

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2997, Issue , 2004, Pages 296-310

  Kazai, Gabriella ^a   Masood, Sherezad ^a   Lalmas, Mounia ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERS;

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE; CRITICAL ANALYSIS; RELEVANCE ASSESSMENTS; RELEVANCE CRITERIA; TEST COLLECTION; XML RETRIEVAL;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 35048834390     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-24752-4_22     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Voorhees, E.M. and Harman, D.K., eds. (2002): The tenth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-2001), Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2002. NIST.
2. Harter, S.P. (1996): Variations in Relevance Assessments and the Measurement of Retrieval Effectiveness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(1):37-47.
3. Saracevic, T.: www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/Courses/610/Lectures/.
4. Vakkari, P. and Hakala, N. (2000): Changes in Relevance Criteria and Problem Stages in Task Performance. Journal of Documentation. 56(5): 540-562.
5. Schamber, L. (1994): Relevance and Information Behaviour. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 29:3-48.
6. Borlund, P. (2003): The Concept of Relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 54(10):913-925.
7. Cosijn, E. and Ingwersen, P. (2000): Dimensions of Relevance. Information Processing and Management, 36:533-550.
8. Saracevic, T. (1996): Relevance Reconsidered. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (COLIS), Copenhagen, pp. 201-218.
9. Mizzaro, S. (1997): Relevance: the whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9):810-832.
10. Tang, R., Shaw, W.M., and Vevea, J.L. (1999): Towards the identification of the optimal numbers of relevance categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3):254-264.
11. Kekäläinen, J. and Järvelin, K. (2002): Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 53(13):1120-1129.
12. Voorhees, E. (2001): Evaluation by highly relevant documents. Proceedings of the 24th ACM-SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, New York, pp. 74-82.
13. Vorhees, E.M. (1998): Variations in Relevance Judgments and the Measurement of Retrieval Effectiveness. Proceedings of the 21st ACM-SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Melbourne pp. 315-323.
14. Fuhr, N., Lalmas, M., Kazai, G.,Gövert, N. eds (2003): Proceedings of the first workshop of the INitiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval (INEX), Dagstuhl. ERCIM workshop proceedings.
15. Järvelin, K., Kekäläinen, J. (2000): IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM-SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Athens, pp. 41-48.