The foundation of the concept of relevance

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 217-237

  Hjørland, Birger ^a  

^a ROYAL SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BASIC CONCEPTS;

INFORMATION SERVICES;

EID: 76649125599     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21261     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Abrahamsen, K.T. (2003). Indexing of musical genres. An epistemological perspective. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 144-169.
2. Applegate, R. (1993). Models of user satisfaction: Understanding false positives. RQ, 32(4), 525-539.
3. Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
4. Borlund, P. (2000). Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. (Doctoral dissertation, Âbo Akademi University).
5. Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 913-925.
6. Case, D. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
7. Cleverdon, C.W. (1970). The effect of variations in relevance assessments in comparative experimental tests of index languages. (Cranfield Library Report No. 3). Cranfield, UK: Cranfield Institute of Technology.
8. Cleverdon, C.W. (1971). Design and evaluation of information systems. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 6, 41-73.
9. Cleverdon, C.W, & Keen, M. (1966). Aslib Cranfield research projectFactors determining the performance of indexing systems. Volume 2, Test results. Cranfield, UK: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.Uk/bitstream/1826/863/2/1966e.pdf
10. Cleverdon, C.W., Mills, J., Keen, M. (1966). Factors determining the performance of indexing systems. Volume 1, Design: Part 1. Cranfield, UK: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://hdl.handle.net/ 1826/861; Part 2, Appendices. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from https://dspace.lib. cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/862
11. Coiera, E.W., & Vickland, V. (2008). Is relevance relevant? User relevance ratings may not predict the impact of Internet search on decision outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(4), 542-545.
12. Cooper, William S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7, 19-37.
13. Cronin, B. (2008). The sociological turn in information science. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 465-475.
14. Cronin, B. (2009). Introduction. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43, VII-X. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
15. Doran, P.T., & Kendall Zimmerman, M. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 90(3). Retrieved August 23, 2009, from http://tigger.uic.edu/pdoran/ 012009%5FDoran%5Ffinal.pdf
16. Ellis,D.(1996).Thedilemmaofmeasurementininformationretrievalresearch. JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScience,47(1),23-36. (Pubitemid126582653)
17. Foskett, D.J. (1972). A note on the concept of 'relevance.' Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(2), 77-78.
18. Frohmann, B. (1990). Rules of indexing: A critique of mentalism in information retrieval theory. Journal of Documentation, 46(2), 81-101.
19. Fugmann, R. (1973). On the role of subjectivity in establishing, using, operating and evaluating information retrieval systems. Treatise II on retrieval system theory. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9(7), 353-372.
20. Gerhart, S. (2004). Do web search engines suppress controversy? First Monday, 9(1). Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/ cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1111/1031
21. Goldacre, B. (2008). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.
22. Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2006). An Inconvenient Truth [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Classics.
23. Hildreth, C.R. (2001). Accounting for users' inflated assessments of online catalogue search performance and usefulness: An experimental study. Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://InformationR.net/ir/6-2/paperl01.html
24. Hjøpiland, B. (1997). Information seeking and subject representation. An activity-theoretical approach to Information Science. Westport, CT, and London: Greenwood Press.
25. Hjøpiland, B. (2000). Relevance research: The missing perspectives: "Nonrelevance" and "epistemological relevance." Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 209-211.
26. Hjøpiland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(4), 257-270. (Pubitemid 34237296)
27. Hjøpiland, B. (2008a). Core classification theory: A reply to Szostak. Journal of Documentation, 64(3), 333-342.
28. Hjøpiland, B. (2008b). Source criticism. Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia. Retrieved July 15,2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Source%255 Fcriticism
29. Hjøpiland, B. (2009). Concept theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1519-1536.
30. Hjøpiland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in Information Science: Domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425.
31. Hjøpiland, B., & Kyllesbech Nielsen, L. (2001). Subject access points in electronic retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 35, 3-51.
32. Hjørland, B., & Nicolaisen, J. (2005). The epistemological lifeboat. Epistemology and philosophy of science for Information Scientists. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/default.asp
33. Hjørland, B., & Sejer Christensen, F. (2002). Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance. A specific example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(11), 960-965.
34. Holland, K. (2005). Relevance (debate). In B. Hjørland & J. Nicolaisen (Eds.), The epistemological lifeboat. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/info.asp?subjectid=176
35. Hulme, E.W. (1911). Principles of book classification. Library Association Record, 13, 354-358, 389-394, 444-449.
36. Introna, L.D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the politics of search engines matter. The Information Society, 16(3), 169-186. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/ searchengines.pdf
37. Janes, J.W. (1994). Other people's judgments. A comparison of users' and others' judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 160-171.
38. Kann-Christensen, N., & Andersen, J. (2009). Developing the library: Between efficiency, accountability and forms of recognition. Journal of Documentation, 65(2), 208-222.
39. Kuhn, T.S. (1962, 1970, 1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Matheron, G. (1989). Estimating and choosing. An essay on probability in practice (A.M. Hasofer, Trans.). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
41. Mizzaro, S. (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 810-832.
42. Mizzaro, S. (1998). How many relevances in information retrieval? Interacting with Computers, 10(3), 303-320.
43. Nicolaisen, J. (2009). Compromised need and the label effect: An examination of claims and evidence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2004-2009.
44. Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(3 Dec), 1686. Retrieved August 23, 2009, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
45. ørom, A. (2003). Knowledge organization in the domain of Art StudiesHistory, transition and conceptual changes. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 128-143.
46. Rees, A.M., & Schultz, D.G. (1967). A field experiment approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching, 2 vols. Cleveland, OH: Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University.
47. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson & Co.
48. Saracevic, T. (1970). The concept of "relevance" in information science: A historical review. InT. Saracevic (Ed.), Introduction to information science (pp. 111-151). New York: R. R. Bowker.
49. Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science [in 2007 termed "Part I (of III)"]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (6), 321-343. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/tefko/ Saracevic-relevance-75.pdf
50. Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: Nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 1915-1933. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.scus.rutgers.edu/tefko/Saracevic%20relevance%20pt% 20II%20JASIST%20%2707.pdf
51. Saracevic, T. (2008). Effects of inconsistent relevance judgments on information retrieval test results: A historical perspective. Library Trends, 56(4), 763-783. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/ tefko/LibraryTrends2008.pdf
52. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29, 3-48.
53. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Nilan, M.S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6), 755-776.
54. Soergel, D. ( 1976). Is user satisfaction a hobgoblin? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(4), 256-259.
55. Soergel, D. (1985). Organizing information: Principles of data base and retrieval systems. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
56. Sparck Jones, K. (2005). Revisiting classification for retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 61(5), 598-601.
57. Sundin, O., & Johannisson, J. (2005). The instrumentality of information needs and relevance. In F. Crestani & I. Ruthven (Eds.), Information context: Nature, impact, and role: Fifth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences (CoLIS 2005). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.3507, S.107-118.
58. Tang, R., & Solomon, P. (1998). Towards an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgments: An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3), 237-256. (Pubitemid 128392792)
59. Taylor, R.S. (1986). Value added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
60. Thornton, S.P. (2006). Solipsism and the problem of other minds. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.iep.utm.edU/s/solipsis.htm
61. Vakkari, P., & Hakala, N. (2000). Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. Journal of Documentation, 56(5), 540-562.
62. White, H.D. (1992). Literary forms of information work: Annotated bibliographies, bibliographic essays, and reviews of literatures. In H.D. White, M.J. Bates, & P. Wilson (Eds.), For information specialists: Interpretations of reference and bibliographical work (pp. 131-149). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
63. White, H.D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 52(2), 87-108.
64. Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9, 457-471.
65. Wilson, T.D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 37(1), 3-15.
66. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. New York: Addison-Wesley.
67. Xu, Y., & Yin, H. (2008). Novelty and topicality in interactive information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 201-215. (Pubitemid 351205027)