Classical databases and knowledge organization: A case for boolean retrieval and human decision-making during searches

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 1559-1575

  Hjørland, Birger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Boolean searching; knowledge representation; online searching

Indexed keywords

DATABASE SYSTEMS; DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INFORMATION SERVICES; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION; ONLINE SEARCHING;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BOOLEAN RETRIEVAL MODELS; BOOLEAN SEARCHING; HUMAN DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION PROFESSIONS; KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION; LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE; RELEVANT DOCUMENTS;

SEARCH ENGINES;

EID: 84946230900     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23250     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Abdou, S., &, Savoy, J., (2008). Searching in MEDLINE: Query expansion and manual indexing evaluation. Information Processing and Management, 44 (2), 781-789.
2. Anders, M.E., &, Evans, D.P., (2010). Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches. Respiratory Care, 55 (5), 578-583. Retrieved from http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/55/5/578.full.pdf
3. Armstrong, T., Moat, A., Webber, W., &, Zobel, J., (2009a). Has adhoc retrieval improved since 1994? In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR) (pp. 692-693). Boston: ACM. Retrieved from http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~wew/papers/pp078-armstrong.pdf
4. Armstrong, T., Moat, A., Webber, W., &, Zobel, J., (2009b). Improvements that don't add up: Ad-hoc retrieval results since 1998. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '09) (pp. 601-610). New York: ACM.
5. Ashmore, M., (2001). Reflexivity, in science and technology studies. In, N.J. Smelser, &, P.B. Baltes, (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 19, pp. 12881-12884). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
6. Avenell, A., Handoll, H., &, Grant, A., (2001). Lessons for search strategies from a systematic review in the Cochrane Library of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 73 (3), 505-510.
7. Baeza-Yates, R., &, Ribeiro-Neto, B., (1999). Modern information retrieval. New York: ACM Press.
8. Baeza-Yates, R., &, Ribeiro-Neto, B., (2011). Modern information retrieval. The concepts and technology behind search (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
9. Bakhtin, M.M., (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (, C. Emerson, &, M. Holquist, Eds.; V.W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
10. Bawden, D., (2013). Requiem for AltaVista. Retrieved from http://theoccasionalinformationist.com/
11. Belkin, N.J., &, Croft, W.B., (1987). Retrieval techniques. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 22, 109-145.
12. Bell, S.S., (2012). Librarian's guide to online searching (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
13. Bloor, D., (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
14. Boell, S.K., &, Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., (2010). Literature reviews and the hermeneutic circle. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 41 (2), 129-144.
15. Booth, A., Harris, J., Croot, E., Springett, J., Campbell, F., &, Wilkins, E., (2013). Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual "richness" for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 118. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/118
16. Bourne, C.P., &, Hahn, T.B., (2003). A history of online information services 1963-1976. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Brown, F.M., (2003). Boolean reasoning: The logic of Boolean equations (2nd ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
18. Case, D.O., (2012). Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior (3rd ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.
19. Chowdhury, G.G., (2010). Introduction to modern information retrieval (3rd ed.). London: Facet Publishing.
20. Chu, H., (2010). Information representation and retrieval in the digital age (2nd ed.). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
21. Cooper, W.S., (1988). Getting beyond Boole. Information Processing and Management, 24 (3), 243-248.
22. Croft, B., (1998). Exact-match retrieval. PowerPoint presentation. (©Howard Turtle and Bruce Croft). Retrieved from http://www.cpe.ku.ac.th/~arnon/Mirror/ir-p/ir6 /
23. Crumley, E.T., Wiebe, N., Cramer, K., Klassen, T.P., &, Hartling, L., (2005). Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: A systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5, 24. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2288-5-24.pdf
24. Dahlberg, I., (1974). Grundlagen universaler Wissensordnung: Probleme und Möglichkeiten eines universalen Klassifikationssystems des Wissens. Pullach bei München, Germany: Verlag Dokumentation.
25. Davis, C.H., (1995). Beyond Boole: The next logical step. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 21 (5), 17-20. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun-95/cdavis.html
26. Diaz, A., (2008). Through the Google Googles: Sociopolitical bias in search engine design. In, A. Spink, &, M. Zimmer, (Eds.), Web search: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 11-34). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
27. Dickersin, K., Scherer, R., &, Lefebvre, C., (1994). Systematic reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 309 (6964), 1286-1291. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541778/pdf/bmj00465-0048.pdf
28. Einstein, A., (1949). Remarks concerning the essays brought together in this co-operative volume. In, P.A. Schlipp, (Ed.), Albert Einstein, philosopher-scientist (pp. 663-688). New York: Tudor Publishers.
29. Ellis, D., (1996). Progress and problems in information retrieval. London: Library Association Publishing.
30. Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., &, Pappas, G., (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22 (2), 338-342. Retrieved from http://www.fasebj.org/content/22/2/338.full.pdf
31. Fast, K., Leise, F., &, Steckel, M., (2002). What is a controlled vocabulary? Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/2f7j6x
32. Fisher, K.E., Erdelez, S., &, McKechnie, L., (Eds). (2005). Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
33. Gehanno, J.F., Rollin, L., &, Darmoni, S., (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2013, 13, 7. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/13/7
34. Gerhart, S., (2004). Do Web search engines suppress controversy? First Monday, 9, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/%20view/1111/1031 view/1111/1031
35. Glossbrenner, A., &, Glossbrenner, E., (2001). Search engines for the World Wide Web (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Peachpit Press.
36. Göker, A., &, Davies, J., (2009). Information retrieval: Searching in the 21st century. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
37. Granka, L.A., (2010). The politics of search: A decade retrospective. The Information Society, 26 (5), 364-374.
38. Hahn, T.B., (1998). Text retrieval online: Historical perspectives on Web search engines. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (4), 7-10. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-98/hahn.html
39. Hargittai, E., (2007). The social, political, economic, and cultural dimensions of search engines: An introduction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (3), 769-777.
40. Harter, S.P., (1986). Online information retrieval. Concepts, principles, and techniques. New York: Academic Press.
41. Higgins, J.P.T., &, Green, S., (Eds). (2009). The Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.0.2. London: The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/
42. Hindman, M., &, Tsioutsiouliklis, J., (2003). Googlearchy: How a few heavily linked sites dominate politics on the Web. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 3-6, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~kt/mpsa03.pdf
43. Hjørland, B., (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (2), 217-237.
44. Hjørland, B., (2011a). Evidence based practice. An analysis based on the philosophy of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (7), 1301-1310.
45. Hjørland, B., (2011b). The Importance of theories of knowledge: Indexing and information retrieval as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (1), 72-77.
46. Hjørland, B., (2013a). Citation analysis: A social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization. Information Processing and Management, 49 (6), 1313-1325.
47. Hjørland, B., (2013b). Facet analysis: The logical approach to knowledge organization. Information Processing & Management, 49, 545-557.
48. Hjørland, B., (2013c). User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization: A theoretical analysis of the research literature. Knowledge Organization 40, 11-27.
49. Hjørland, B., (in press). Are relations in thesauri "context free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? Paper accepted by Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
50. Hjørland, B., &, Kyllesbech Nielsen, L., (2001). Subject access points in electronic retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 35, 249-298.
51. Hock, R., (2013). The extreme searcher's Internet handbook: A guide for the serious searcher (4th ed.). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
52. Introna, L., &, Nissenbaum, H., (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16 (3), 1-17.
53. Karimi, S., Pohl, S., Scholer, F., Cavedon, L., &, Zobel, J., (2010). Boolean versus ranked querying for biomedical systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10, article 58. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/58
54. Karimi, S., Zobel, J., Pohl, S., &, Scholer, F., (2009). The challenge of high recall in biomedical systematic search. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Data and Text Mining in Bioinformatics, November 2009 (pp. 89-92). Hong Kong, China: ACM. Retrieved from http://www.nicta.com.au/pub?doc=3413
55. Kassel, A., (2011). The new ProQuest Dialog and what's next? Searcher: The Magazine for Database Professionals, 19 (1), 12-17, 50-55. Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jan11/Kassel-The-New-Proquest-Dialog.pdf
56. Kemp, D.A., (1988). Computer-based knowledge retrieval. Oxford, UK: Aslib.
57. Kingsley, K., Galbraith, G.M., Herring, M., Stowers, E., Stewart, T., &, Kingsley, K.V., (2011). Why not just Google it? An assessment of information literacy skills in a biomedical science curriculum. BMC Medical Education, 11, 17. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-11-17.pdf
58. Kitchenham, B., &, Charters, S., (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Durham, UK: Department of Computer Science, University of Durham. Retrieved from http://www.dur.ac.uk/ebse/resources/guidelines/Systematic-reviews-5-8.pdf
59. Korfhage, R.R., (1997). Information storage and retrieval. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
60. Lancaster, F.W., (1968). Information retrieval systems: Characteristics, testing and evaluation. New York: Wiley.
61. Lancaster, F.W., (1979). Information retrieval systems: Characteristics, testing and evaluation. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.
62. Lancaster, F.W., (2003). Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: Facet Publishing.
63. Larson, R.R., (2010). Information retrieval systems. In, M.J. Bates, &, M.N. Maack, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd ed.) (IV, 2553-2563). New York: CRC Press.
64. Lu, Z., (2011). PubMed and beyond: A survey of web tools for searching biomedical literature. Database, Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025693 /
65. Lu, Z., Kim, W., &, Wilbur, W.J, (2009). Evaluation of query expansion using MeSH in PubMed. Information Retrieval, 12 (1), 69-80.
66. Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., &, Schütze, H., (2009). An introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/pdf/irbookonlinereading.pdf
67. McGowan J., &, Sampson, M., (2005). Systematic reviews need systematic searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), 74-80.
68. Meunier, J.-G., Bertrand-Gastaldy, S., &, Lebel, H., (1987). Call for enhanced representation of content as a means of improving full-text retrieval. International Classification, 14 (1), 2-10.
69. Minsky, M., (1968). Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70. Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A.C., Sampson, M., &, Altman, D.G., (2007). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 4 (3): e78. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1831728/pdf/pmed.0040078.pdf
71. Mooers, C.N., (1951). Zatocoding applied to mechanical organization of knowledge. American Documentation, 2 (1), 20-32.
72. Paris, L.A.H., &, Tibbo, H.R., (1998). Freestyle vs. Boolean. A comparison of partial and exact match retrieval systems. Information Processing & Management, 34 (2-3), 175-190.
73. Pariser, E., (2011). The filter bubble-What the Internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.
74. Pirkola, A., &, Järvelin, K., (2001). Employing the resolution power of search keys. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 52 (7), 575-583.
75. Puurula, A., (2013). Cumulative progress in language models for information retrieval. In Proceedings of Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop (pp. 96-100). Retrieved from http://aclweb.org/anthology//U/U13/U13-1013.pdf
76. Ranganathan, S.R., (1967). Prolegomena to library classification (3rd ed.). Mumbai, India: Asia Publishing House.
77. Robertson, S.E., (1975). Explicit and implicit variables in information retrieval systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26, 214-222.
78. Robertson, S., (2000). Salton award lecture: On theoretical arguments in information retrieval. Talk given at SIGIR 2000, Athens, July 2000. ACM SIGIR Forum, 34 (1), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~ser/papers/salton-lecture-web.pdf
79. Salton, G., (1991). Developments in automatic text retrieval. Science, 253 (5023), 974-980.
80. Salton, G., (1996). A new horizon for information science [Letter to the Editor]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47 (4), 333.
81. Salton, G., Fox, E.A., &, Wu, H., (1983). Extended Boolean information retrieval. Communications of the ACM, 26 (11), 1022-1036.
82. Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., Grimshaw, J., Moher, D., &, Lefebvre, C., (2009). An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (9), 944-952.
83. Saracevic, T., (1999). Information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (12), 1051-1063.
84. Saracevic, T., (2008). Effects of inconsistent relevance judgments on information retrieval test results: A historical perspective. Library Trends, 56 (4), 763-783.
85. Savoie, I., Helmer, D., Green, C.J., Kazanjian, A., (2003). Beyond MEDLINE: Reducing bias through extended systematic review search. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19 (1), 168-178.
86. Serebriakoff, V., (1986). The future of intelligence: Biological and artificial. Carnforth: Parthenon Press.
87. Shannon, C.E., &, Weaver, W., (1964). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
88. Shultz, M., (2007). Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 95 (4), 442-445.
89. Smith, C.L., &, Kantor, P.B., (2008). User adaptation: Good results from poor systems. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 147-154). New York: ACM Press.
90. Smith, L., &, Warner, A.J., (1984). A taxonomy of representations in information system design. Journal of Information Science, 8 (3), 113-121.
91. Soergel, D., (1999). The rise of ontologies or the reinvention of classification. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (12), 1119-1120.
92. Spärck Jones, K., (1972). Statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 28 (1), 11-21.
93. Stockwell, F., (2000). A history of information storage and retrieval. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
94. Svenonius, E., (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
95. Svenonius, E., (2004). The epistemological foundations of knowledge representations. Library Trends, 52 (3), 571-587.
96. Tenopir, C., &, Ro, J.S., (1990). Full text databases. New York: Greenwood Press.
97. Thiel, C., (1991). Boolean algebra. In, H. Burkhardt, &, B. Smith, (Eds.), Handbook of metaphysics and ontology. Vol. 1-2. Munich, Germany: Philosophia Verlag.
98. Trotman, A., &, Keeler, D., (2011). Ad hoc IR: Not much room for improvement. In Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '11) (pp. 1095-1096). New York: ACM.
99. Tuominen, K., Talja, S., &, Savolainen, R., (2003). Multiperspective digital libraries: The implications of constructionism for the development of digital libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (6), 561-569.
100. Turpin, A., &, Hersh, W., (2001). Why batch and user evaluations do not give the same results. In Proceedings of the 24thACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 595-602). New York: ACM Press.
101. Turtle, H.R., &, Croft, W.B., (1992). A comparison of text retrieval models. The Computer Journal 35 (3), 279-290.
102. Vakkari, P., &, Huuskonen, S., (2012). Search effort degrades search output but improves task outcome. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (4): 657-670.
103. van Rijsbergen, C.J., (1979). Information retrieval (2nd ed). London: Butterworths.
104. van Rijsbergen, C.J., (1991). Towards an information logic. In Proceedings of SIGIR-89, 12th ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 77-86). Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.93.5156&rep=rep1&type=pdf
105. van Rijsbergen, C.J., &, Lalmas, M., (1996). Information calculus for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 385-398.
106. Vickery, B.C., (1986). Knowledge representation: A brief review. Journal of Documentation, 42 (3), 145-159.
107. Warner, J., (2000). In the catalogue ye go for men: Evaluation criteria for information retrieval systems. Aslib Proceedings, 52 (2), 76-82.
108. Warner, J., (2010). Human information retrieval. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
109. Winograd, T., (1972). Understanding natural language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
110. Workman, T.E., &, Hurdle, J.F., (2011). Dynamic summarization of bibliographic-based data. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 11, 6. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6947-11-6.pdf
111. Zhao, D., &, Strotmann, A., (2008). Information science during the first decade of the web: An enriched author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59 (6), 916-937.