A user study of relevance judgments for E-discovery

Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting

Volumn 47, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Wang, Jianqiang ^a   Soergel, Dagobert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

e discovery; Relevance judgment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861430816     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15508390     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504701157     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Bailey, P., Craswell, N., Soboroff, I., Thomas, P., de Vries, A. P., Yilmaz, E. (2008). Relevance assessment: are judges exchangeable and does it matter. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in information Retrieval, 667-674.
2. Baron, J. R., Lewis, D. D., Oard, D. W. (2006). TREC-2006 legal track overview. In Proceedings the Fifteenth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2006). Retrieved May 24, 2010 from http://trec.nist.gov.
3. Barry, C. L., Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: a cross-situational comparison, Information Processing and Management, 34(2-3), 219-236.
4. Cleverdon, C. W. (1970). The effect of variations in relevance assessments in comparative experimental tests of index languages. Technical Report ASLIB Part 2, Cranfield Institute of Technology.
5. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
6. Cooper, W. S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7(1), 19-37.
7. Hedin, B., Tomlinson, S., Baron, J. B., Oard, D. W. (2009). Overview of the 2009 TREC legal track. In Proceedings the Eighteenth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2009). Retrieved May 24, 2009 from http://trec.nist.gov.
8. Huang, X., Soergel, D. (2006). An evidence perspective on topical relevance types and its implications for exploratory and task-based retrieval. Information Research, 12(1). Retrieved May 26, 2010 from http://informationr. net/ir/12-1/paper281.html.
9. Huang, X. (2009) Topical Relevance, Rhetoric, and Argumentation: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry into Patterns of Thinking and Information Structuring PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland. Retrieved May 26, 2010 from http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~xiaoli/XH-DisserationAbstr act.pdf
10. Landis, J. R., Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159-74.
11. Oard, D. W., Hedin, B., Tomlinson S., Baron J. B. (2008). Overview of the TREC 2008 legal track. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Text REtrieval Conference. Retrieved May 24, 2010 from: http://trec.nist.gov.
12. Voorhees, E. M. (1998). Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 315-323.
13. Wang, J., Sun, Y., Mukhtar, O, Srihari, R. (2008). TREC 2008 at the university at buffalo: legal and blog track. In Proceedings the Seventeenth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2008). Retrieved May 24, 2009 from http://trec.nist.gov.
14. Wang, J., Sun, Y., Thompson, P. (2009). TREC 2009 at the university at buffalo: interactive legal e-discovery with Enron emails. In Proceedings the Eighteenth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2009) Retrieved May 24, 2009 from http://trec.nist.gov.
15. 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 and Technology, 49(2), 115-133
16. Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9(8), 457-471.