Relevance: An improved framework for explicating the notion

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 64, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 18-35

  Huang, Xiaoli ^a   Soergel, Dagobert ^b  

^a SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

aboutness; relevance

Indexed keywords

ABOUTNESS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; CRITICAL ISSUES; INFORMATION NEED; INFORMATION OBJECT; RELEVANCE; SITUATIONAL FACTORS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

EID: 84871211882     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22811     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Bateman, J., (1998). Changes in relevance criteria: A longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science (35, pp. 23-32). Medford, NJ: Information Today. (Pubitemid 128704169)
2. Barry, C.L., (1993). The identification of user criteria of relevance and document characteristics: Beyond the topical approach to information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
3. Barry, C.L., (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (3), 149-159.
4. Barry, C.L., &, Schamber, L., (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing and Management, 34 (2/3), 219-236. (Pubitemid 128392791)
5. Bates, M.J., (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13 (5), 407-424.
6. Bean, C.A., &, Green, R., (2001). Relevance relationships. In, C. A. Bean, &, R. Green, (Eds.), Relationships in the organization of knowledge (pp. 115-132). Dordrecht: Springer.
7. Belkin, N.J., (1980). The problem of "matching" in information retrieval. In, O. Harbo, &, L. Kajberg, (Eds.), Theory and application of information research: Proceedings of the second international research forum on information science, 3-6 August 1977, Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen (pp. 187-197). London: Mansell.
8. Belkin, N.J., &, Croft, W.B., (1987). Retrieval techniques. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 22, 37-61.
9. Blair, D.C., &, Maron, M.E., (1985). An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Communications of the ACM, 28, 289-299. (Pubitemid 15599385)
10. Bodoff, D., (2006). Relevance for browsing, relevance for searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (1), 69-86.
11. Borlund, P., (2003a). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (10), 913-925.
12. Borlund, P., (2003b). The IIR evaluation model: A framework for evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Information Research, 8 (3), paper no. 152. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/8-3/paper152.html
13. Bradford, S.C., (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal (London), 137 (26 January), 85-86.
14. Bradford, S.C., (1953). Documentation (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
15. Bruce, H.W., (1994). A cognitive view of the situational dynamism of user-centered relevance estimation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (3), 142-148.
16. Bruza, P.D., Song, D.W., &, Wong, K.F., (2000). Aboutness from a commonsense perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51 (12), 1090-1105.
17. Choi, Y., &, Rasmussen, E.M., (2003). Searching for images: The analysis of users' queries for image retrieval in American history. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (6), 498-511.
18. Cleverdon, C.W., (1960). Aslib Cranfield research project: Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems. Cranfield: The College of Aeroautics.
19. Cleverdon, C.W., Mills, J., &, Keen, E.M., (1966). Factors determining the performance of indexing systems, (Volume 1: Design). Cranfield: College of Aeronautics.
20. Cool, C., Belkin, N.J., &, Kantor, P.B., (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. In Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting (pp. 77-84). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
21. Cooper, W.S., (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7 (1), 19-37.
22. Cooper, W.S., (1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, Part 1. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (2), 87-100.
23. Cosijn, E., &, Ingwersen, P., (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing and Management, 36 (4), 533-550. (Pubitemid 30594068)
24. Cuadra, C.A., (1964). On the Utility of the Relevance Concept. Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corp., SDC-SP 1595; AD-443746.
25. Cuadra, C.A., &, Katter, R.V., (1967a). Experimental studies of relevance judgments: Final report. Vol. I: Project summary (NSF Report No. TM-3520 / 001 / 00). Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corp.
26. Cuadra, C.A., &, Katter, R.V., (1967b). Opening the black box of "relevance." Journal of Documentation, 23 (4), 291-303.
27. Doyle, L.B., (1963). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation? In Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute (Part 2) (pp. 199-200). Washington, DC: American Documentation Institute.
28. Eisenberg, M., &, Barry, C., (1988). Order effects: A study of the possible influence of presentation order on user judgements of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39 (5), 293-300.
29. Fairthorne, R.A., (1955). Essentials for document retrieval. Special Library, 46, 340-353.
30. Fairthorne, R.A., (1956). The patterns of retrieval. American Documentation, 7, 65-70.
31. Fairthorne, R.A., (1969). Empirical hyperbolic distributions (Bradford-Zipf-Mandelbrot) for bibliometric description and prediction. Journal of Documentation, 25, 319-343.
32. Foskett, D.J., (1972). A note on the concept of "relevance." Information Storage and Retrieval, 8 (2), 77-78.
33. 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.
34. Goffman, W., &, Newill, V.A., (1966). Methodology for test and evaluation of information retrieval systems. Information Storage and Retrieval, 3 (1), 19-25.
35. Green, R., (1995). Topical relevance relationships. I. Why topic matching fails. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46 (9), 646-653.
36. Green, R., &, Bean, C.A., (1995). Topical relevance relationships. II. An exploratory study and preliminary typology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46 (9), 654-662.
37. Gull, C.D., (1956). Seven years of work on the organization of materials in special library. American Documentation, 7, 320-329.
38. Harter, S.P., (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43 (9), 602-615.
39. Hersh, W., (1994). Relevance and retrieval evaluation: Perspectives from medicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (3), 201-206.
40. Hillman, D.J., (1964). The notion of relevance (1). American Documentation, 15 (1), 26-34
41. Hirsh, S.G., (1999). Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (14), 1265-1283. (Pubitemid 30518839)
42. Hjorland, B., (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (2), 217-317.
43. Hjorland, 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)
44. Huang, X., &, Soergel, D., (2004). Relevance judges' understanding of topical relevance types: An explication of an enriched concept of topical relevance. In Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T 2004). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
45. Huang, X., &, Soergel, D., (2006). An evidence perspective on topical relevance types & its implications for task-based retrieval. Information Research, 12 (1).
46. Huang, X., &, White, R.W., (2005). Policy capturing models for multi-faceted relevance judgments. In Proceedings of the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T 2005). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
47. Huang, X., (2009a). Topical relevance, rhetoric, and argumentation: A cross-disciplinary inquiry into patterns of thinking and information structuring. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
48. Huang, X., (2009b). Developing a cross-disciplinary typology of topical relevance relationships as the basis for topic-oriented information architecture. In Proceedings of the ASIST SIG-CR (Special Interest Group on Classification Research) 20th Workshop.
49. Ingwersen, P., (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation 52 (1), 3-50.
50. Ingwersen, P., &, Järvelin, K., (2005). The turn: integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Amsterdam: Springer.
51. 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.
52. Kemp, D.A., (1974). Relevance, pertinence and information system development. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10 (2), 37-47.
53. Kochen, M., (1974). Principles of information retrieval. Los Angeles: Melville.
54. Komlodi, A., (2004). Task management support in information seeking: A case for search histories. Computers in Human Behavior, 20 (2), 163-184.
55. Komlodi, A., Soergel, D., &, Marchionini, G., (2006). Search histories for user support in user interfaces. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (6), 803-807.
56. Lalmas, M., (1998). Logical models in information retrieval: introduction and overview. Information Processing & Management, 34 (1), 19-33. (Pubitemid 128390261)
57. Lawley, K.N., Soergel, D., &, Huang, X., (2005). Relevance criteria used by teachers in selecting oral history materials. In Proceedings of the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T 2005).
58. Lotka, A.J., (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16 (12), 317-324.
59. Luk, R.W.P., Leong, H.V., Dillon, T.S., Chan, A.T.S., Croft, W.B., &, Allen, J., (2002). A survey in indexing and searching XML documents. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (6), 415-437. (Pubitemid 34300498)
60. Maron, M.E., (1977). On indexing, retrieval and the meaning of about. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28, 38-43.
61. Maron, M.E., (1985). Probabilistic retrieval methods. Progress in Communication Sciences, 5, 145-176.
62. Maron, M.E., &, Kuhns, J.L., (1960). On relevance, probabilistic indexing and information Retrieval. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 7 (3), 216-244.
63. Mizzaro, S., (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (9), 810-832. (Pubitemid 127628564)
64. Mooers, C.S., (1950). Coding, information retrieval, and the rapid selector. American Documentation, 1 (4), 225-229.
65. Norvig, P., (2010). Opinion: 2020 visions: Search. Nature, 463, 26.
66. Orimaye, S.O., Alhashmi, S.M., EuGene, S., (2012). Performance and trends in recent opinion retrieval techniques. The Knowledge Engineering Review (in press). Retrieved from http://monuni.academia.edu/SylvesterOluboluOrimaye/ Papers/1524456/Performance-and-Trends-in-Recent-Opinion-Retrieval-Techniques
67. Park, T.K., (1992). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
68. Park, T.K., (1994). Toward a theory of user-based relevance: A call for a new paradigm of inquiry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (3), 135-141.
69. Pharo, N., &, Krahn, A., (2011). The effect of task type on preferred element types in an XML-based retrieval system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (9), 1717-1726.
70. Ponte, J., &, Croft, W.B., (1998). A language modeling approach to information retrieval. In, W.B. Croft, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval [ACM SIGIR 21] (pp. 275-281). New York: ACM Press.
71. Rees, A.M., &, Saracevic, T., (1966). The measurability of relevance. Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute (pp. 225-234). Washington, DC: American Documentation Institute.
72. Rees, A.M., &, Schultz, D.G., (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University.
73. Saracevic, T., (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (6), 321-343.
74. Saracevic, T., (1996). Relevance reconsidered. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (pp. 201-218).
75. Saracevic, T., (2006). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II. Advances in librarianship, 30, 3-71.
76. Saracevic, T., (2007a). 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 (13), 1915-1933. (Pubitemid 350229698)
77. Saracevic, T., (2007b). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), 2126-2144. (Pubitemid 350229713)
78. Schamber, L., (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in multimedia information seeking and use situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
79. Schamber, L., (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29, 3-48.
80. Schamber, L., &, Bateman, J., (1996). User criteria in relevance evaluation: Toward development of a measurement scale. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science (33, pp. 218-225). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
81. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M., &, Nilan, M.S., (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal, 26 (6), 755-776.
82. Soergel, D., (1985). Organizing information. Principles of data base and retrieval systems. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
83. Sun, Y., &, Kantor, P.B., (2006). Cross-evaluation: A new model for information system evaluation. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (5), 614-628.
84. Sun, Y., Kantor, P.B., &, Morse, E.L., (2011). Using cross-evaluation to evaluate interactive qa systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (9), 1653-1665.
85. Sutton, S.A., (1994). The role of attorney mental models of law in case relevance determinations: An exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (3), 186-200.
86. Swanson, D.R., (1977). Information retrieval as a trial-and-error process. Library Quarterly, 47, 128-148.
87. Swanson, D.R., (1986). Subjective versus objective relevance in bibliographic retrieval systems. Library Quarterly, 56, 389-398.
88. Taube, M., (1955). Storage and retrieval of information by means of the association of ideas. American Documentation, 6 (1), 1-17.
89. Thorne, R.G., (1955). The efficiency of subject catalogues and the cost of information searches. Journal of Documentation, 11, 130-148.
90. Urquhart, D.J., (1959). The use of scientific periodicals. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, Washington, D.C., November 16-21, 1958 (Vol 1, pp. 287-300). Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
91. Vakkari, P., (2003). Task based information searching. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 413-464.
92. Van Rijsbergen, C.J., (1986). A new theoretical framework for information retrieval. In, F. Rabitti, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval [ACM SIGIR 9] (pp. 194-200). New York: ACM Press.
93. Van Rijsbergen, C.J., (1989). Towards an information logic. In, N.J. Belkin, &, C.J. van Rijsbergen, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval [ACM SIGIR 12] (pp. 77-86). New York: ACM Press.
94. Voorhees, E.M., &, Harman, D.K., (Eds.) (2005). TREC. Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
95. Wang, P., (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
96. 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. (Pubitemid 128594911)
97. Wang, P., &, White, M.D., (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (2), 98-114.
98. Weiler, G., (1962). On relevance. Mind, 71, 487-493.
99. Wilson, D., &, Sperber, D., (2004). Relevance theory. In, G. Ward, &, L. Horn, (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford: Blackwell.
100. Wilson, P., (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9, 457-471.
101. Wilson, P., (1978). Some fundamental concepts of information retrieval. Drexel Library Quarterly, 14 (2), 10-24.
102. 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. (Pubitemid 43734462)
103. Xu, Y., &, Wang, D., (2008). Order effect in relevance judgment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (8), 1264-1275.
104. Zipf, G.K., (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.