A structured model for evaluation of information retrieval (IR)

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Volumn 52, Issue , 1998, Pages 171-175

  Kagolovsky, Yuri ^a   Möhr, Jochen R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Evaluation Studies; Information Storage and Retrieval

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EVALUATION STUDY; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; IR SYSTEMS; RECALL AND PRECISION; STRUCTURED EVALUATION; STRUCTURED MODEL;

SEARCH ENGINES;

ARTICLE; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

EID: 84887809062     PISSN: 09269630     EISSN: 18798365     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-60750-896-0-171     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Hersh WR.Information Retrieval: A Health Care Perspective.New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1996.
2. Saltan G, and McGill MJ.Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval.New York: McGraw Hill, 1983.
3. Kantor PB.Information retrieval techniques.Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 1994: 29 pp.3-48.
4. Mannoni B.Bringing museums online.Communications of The ACM 1996: 39 (6) pp.100-5.
5. Cleverdon C.The Cranfield tests on index language devices.Aslib Proceedings 1967: 19 pp.173-93.
6. Kent A, Berry MM, Leuhrs FU, and Perry JW.Machine literature searching.VIII: Operational criteria for designing information retrieval systems.American Documentation 1955: 6 pp.93-101.
7. Cleverdon CW, and Keen EM.Factors Determining The Performance of Indexing Systems.Cranfield, UK: Aslib Cranfiled Research Project, 1966.
8. Swanson DR.Some unexplained aspects of The Cranfield tests of indexing performance factors.Library Quarterly 1971:41pp.223-8.
9. Harter SP.Variations in relevance assessments and The measurement of retrieval effectiveness.Journal of The American Society for Information Science 1996: 47 (1) pp.37-49.
10. Saltan G.The state of retrieval system evaluation.Information Processing &Management 1992: 28 (4) pp.441-9.
11. Schamber L.Relevance and information behavior.Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 1994: 29 pp.3-48.
12. Smeaton A.Report on TREC-2 Conference, [online] IR Digest 1993: Vol.X, No.42, Issue 186.Available via anonymous FTP, URL: ftp://ftp.dla.ucop.eduy in directory pub/irl/1993/
13. Fidel R, and Soergel D.Factors affecting online bibliographic retrieval: A conceptual framework for research.Journal of The American Society for Information Science 1983:34 (3) pp.163-80.
14. Robertson SE, and Hancock-Beaulieu MM.On The evaluation of IR systems.Information Processing &Management 1992: 28 (4) pp.457-66.
15. Tague-Sutcliffe J.The pragmatics of information retrieval experimentation, Revisited.Information Processing &Management 1992: 28 (4) pp.467-90.
16. Belkin NJ.Cognitive models and information retrieval.Social Science Information Studies 1984: 4 pp.111-29.
17. Ellis D.The dilemma of measurement in information retrieval research.Journal of The American Society for Information Science 1996: 47 (1) pp.23-36.
18. Wilson TD.Information needs and uses: Fifty years of progress? In: Vickery BC, ed.Fifty years of information progress.London: Aslib, 1994; pp.15-51.
19. Tague-Sutcliffe J.Some perspectives on The evaluation of information retrieval systems.Journal of The American Society for Information Science 1996: 47 (1) pp.1-3.
20. Tague J, Salminen A, and McClellan C.A complete model for information retrieval systems.In: Bookstein A, Chiara-mella Y, Saltan G, and Raghavan VV, eds.SIGIR '91: Proceedings of The Fourteenth Annual International ACM/SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Chicago, October, 1991).New York: ACM Press, 1991; pp.14-20.
21. Marchionini G.Interfaces for end-user information seeking.Journal of The American Society for Information Science 1992:43 (2) pp.156-63.
22. Croft WB.Knowledge-based and statistical approaches to text retrieval.IEEE Expert 1993: April pp.8-12.
23. Meadow CT.Text Information Retrieval Systems.San Diego: Academic Press 1992.
24. Lancaster FW, and Warner AJ.Information Retrieval Today.Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press, 1993.
25. Fidel R.Qualitative methods in information retrieval research.Library and Information Science Research 1993: 15 pp.219-47.
26. Westbrook L.User-needs: A synthesis and analysis of current theories for The practitioner.RQ 1993: 32 pp.541-9.
27. Egan DE, Remde JR, Gomez LM, Landauer TK, Eber-hardt J, and Lochbaum CC.Formative des-ign-evaluation of Superbook.ACM Trans Information Systems 1989: 7 pp.30-57.
28. Hersh WR, Elliot DL, Hickam DH, Wolf SL, Molnar A, and Leichtenstien C.Towards new measures of information retrieval evaluation.In: Ozbolt JG, ed.Proceedings of The 18th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care.Philadelphia: Hanley &Belfus, Inc., 1994; pp.895-899.
29. Hersh WR, Pentecost J, and Hickam DH.A task-oriented approach to information retrieval evaluation.Journal of The American Society for Information Science 1996: 47 (1) pp.50-6.
30. Wildemuth BM, deBliek R, Friedman CP, and File DD.Medical students' personal knowledge, searching proficiency, and database use in problem solving.Journal of The American Society for Information Science 1995: 46 (8) pp.590-607.
31. Shneiderman B.Designing The User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992.
32. Elstein AS, Shulman LS, and Sprafka SA.Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical-Reasoning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
33. Ericsson KA and Simon HA.Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, Revised Edition.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
34. Kushniruk AW, Kaufman DR, Patel VL, Levesque Y, and Lottin P.Assessment of A computerized patient record system: A cognitive approach to evaluating medical technology.M.D.Computing 1996: 13 (5) pp.406-15.