The influence of relevance levels on the effectiveness of interactive information retrieval

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 55, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 963-969

  Vakkari, Pertti ^a   Sormunen, Eero ^a  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINARY SCALES; RELEVANCE LEVELS; TEXT RETRIEVAL CONFERENCE (TREC);

DATABASE SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION; QUERY LANGUAGES; THRESHOLD LOGIC; USER INTERFACES;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 4444305070     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20046     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Beaulieu, M., Robertson, S., & Rasmussen, E. (1996). Evaluating interactive systems in TREC. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 85-94.
2. Blair, D., & Maron, M. (1985). An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document retrieval system. Communications of the ACM 28(3), 289-299.
3. Cleverdon, C. (1967). The Cranfield tests on indexing language devices. Aslib Proceedings, 19(6), 173-194.
4. Cuadra, C., & Katter, R. (1967). Experimental studies of relevance judgements: Final Report. Vol. I: Project summary. Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corporation.
5. Gordon, M., & Pathak, P. (1999). Finding information on the World Wide Web: The retrieval effectiveness of search engines. Information Processing and Management, 35(2), 141-180.
6. Harter, S. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 602-615.
7. Hawking, D. (2002). Overview of the TREC-9 Web Track. Retrieved January 20, 2003, from http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec9/papers/web9.pdf
8. Hersh, W., & Over, P. (2001). TREC-9 Interactive Track Report. In E.M. Voorhees & D.K. Harman (Eds.), The Ninth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-9). Retrieved January 11, 2003, from http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec9/ papers/t9irep.pdf
9. Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2000). IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In N. Belkin, P. Ingwersen, & M.-K. Leong (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGIR 2000 (pp. 41-48). New York: ACM.
10. Kekäläinen, J., & Järvelin, K. (2002). Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 53(13), 1120-1129.
11. Over, P. (2001). The TREC interactive track: An annotated bibliography. Information Processing & Management, 37(3), 368-381.
12. Ruthven, I., Lalmas, M., & van Rijsbergen, K. (2002). Ranking expansion terms with partial and ostensive evidence. In H. Bruce (Ed.), Emerging frameworks and methods, Proceedings of the Fourth CoLIS Conference (pp. 199-219). Greenwood, NJ: Libraries Unlimited.
13. Saracevic, T. (1976). Relevance in information science. In M.Voigt & M. Harris (Eds.), Advances in Librarianship (Vol. 6, pp. 79-138). New York: Academic Press.
14. Sormunen, E. (2002). Liberal relevance criteria of TREC - Counting on negligible documents? In M. Beaulieu, R. Baeza-Yates, S. Myaeng, & K. Järvelin (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGIR 2002 (pp. 324-330). New York: ACM.
15. Sormunen, E., Kekäläinen, J., Koivisto, J., & Järvelin, K. (2001). Document text characteristics affect the ranking of the most relevant documents by expanded structured queries. Journal of Documentation, 57(3), 358-376.
16. Spink, A., Greisdorf, R., & Bateman, J. (1998). From highly relevant to non-relevant: Examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing and Management, 34, 599-622.
17. Vakkari, P. (2002) Task-based information searching. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 413-464). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
18. Vakkari, P., & Hakala, N. (2000). Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. Journal of Documentation, 56, 540-562.
19. Vorhees, E. (2000). Variations in relevance judgements and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. Information Processing and Management, 36, 697-716.
20. Vorhees, E. (2001). Evaluation by highly relevant documents. In W. Croft, D. Harper, D. Kraft, & J. Hobel (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGIR 2001 (pp. 74-82). New York: ACM.