Novelty and topicality in interactive information retrieval

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 201-215

  Xu, Yunjie ^a   Yin, Hainan ^a  

^a NONE   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

NOVELTY JUDGMENT; USER BEHAVIOR; USER-CENTERED CLUSTER WORKING;

INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS;

EID: 38849095756     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20709     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Allan, J., Wade, C., & Bolivar, A. (2003). Retrieval and novelty detection at the sentence level. In Proceedings of the 26th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 314-321). New York: ACM.
2. Baeza-Yates, R.A., & Ribeiro-Neto, B.A. (1999). Modern information retrieval. New York: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.
3. Barry, C. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 149-159.
4. Barry, C., & Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34, 219-236.
5. Bateman, J. (1998). Changes in relevance criteria: A longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 23-32). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
6. Bates, M.J. (1990). Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Information Processing & Management, 26(5), 575-591.
7. Bookstein, A. (1979). Relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30(5), 269-273.
8. Borlund, P. (2000). Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 56(1), 71-90.
9. Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 913-925.
10. Boyce, B. (1982). Beyond topicality: A two stage view of relevance and the retrieval process. Information Processing & Management, 18(3), 105-109.
11. Brants, T., Chen, F., & Farahat, A. (2003). A system for new event detection. In Proceedings of the 26th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 330-337). New York: ACM.
12. Carbonell, J., & Goldstein, J. (1998). The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proceedings of the 21st annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 335-336). New York: ACM.
13. Cosijn, E., & Ingwersen, P. (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36(4), 533-550.
14. Efthimiadis, E. (2000). Interactive query expansion: A user-based evaluation in relevance feedback environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(11), 989-1003.
15. Fitzgerald, M.A., & Galloway, C. (2001). Relevance judging, evaluation, and decision making in virtual library: A descriptive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(12), 989-1010.
16. Froehlich, T.J. (1994). Relevance reconsidered: Towards an agenda for the 21st century: Introduction to special topic issue on relevance research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 124-134.
17. Greisdorf, H. (2003). Relevance thresholds: A multi-stage predictive model of how users evaluate information. Information Processing & Management, 39, 403-423.
18. Harter, S.P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 602-615.
19. Ingwersen, P., & Järvelin, K. (2005). The turn: Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
20. Kekäläinen, J., & Järvelin, K. (2002). Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1120-1129.
21. Kirk, R.E. (1995). Experimental design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
22. Kumaran, G., & Allan, J. (2004). Text classification and named entities for new event detection. In Proceedings of the 27th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval I (pp. 297-304). New York: ACM.
23. Mizzaro, S. (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 810-832.
24. Nordlie, R. (1999). "User revealment" - A comparison of initial queries and ensuing question development in online searching and in human reference interaction. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 11-18). New York: ACM.
25. Park, H. (1997). Relevance of science information: Origins and dimensions of relevance and their implications to information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 33(3), 339-352.
26. Robertson, S.E., & Spark-Jones, K. (1976). Relevance weighting of search terms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 129-146.
27. Rocchio, J.J. (1971). Relevance feedback in information retrieval. In G. Salton (Ed.), The SMART Retrieval System-Experiments in automatic document processing (pp. 313-323). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28. Saracevic, T. (1999). Information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1051-1063.
29. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29, 33-48.
30. Spink, A., Wolfram, D., Jansen, M., & Saracevic, T. (2001). Search the Web: The public and their queries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(3), 226-234.
31. University of California, Berkeley. (2001). Web term document frequency form. Retrieved June 9, 2005, from http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/docfreq
32. Vakkari, P., Pennanen, M., & Serola, S. (2003). Changes of search terms and tactics while writing a research proposal: A longitudinal case study. Information Processing & Management, 39, 445-463.
33. 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, 49(2), 115-133.
34. Xu, Y. & Chen, Z. (2006). Relevance judgment-What do information users consider beyond topicality? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(7), 961-973.
35. Yang, Y. Zhang, J., Carbonell, J., & Jin, C. (2002). Topic-conditioned novelty detection. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD) (pp. 688-693). New York: ACM.
36. Zhai, C., Cohen, W.W., & Lafferty, J. (2003). Beyond independent relevance: Methods and evaluation metrics for subtopic retrieval. In Proceedings of the 26th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 10-17). New York: ACM.
37. Zhang, Y., Callan, J., & Minka, T. (2002). Novelty and redundancy detection in adaptive filtering. In Proceedings of the 25th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 81-88). New York: ACM.