Relevance of science information: Origins and dimensions of relevance and their implications to information retrieval

Park, Hongseok

doi:10.1016/s0306-4573(96)00072-6

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The term subjective relevance is used as an umbrella term to cover the concepts of subjective topicality (or topical relevance) and situational relevance. Here, subjective topicality refers to the "aboutness" of a document as perceived by the user in relation to her information need; situational relevance refers to the usefulness, value, utility, pragmatic application or pertinence of a document to the task, or problem at hand (Cosijn & Ingwersen, 2000;Hjørland & Christensen, 2002;Mizzaro, 1997;Park, 1997;Saracevic, 1975). Subjective topicality extends system-determined querydocument match, which is known as system relevance (Saracevic, 1996).…”

Section: Subjective Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality?

Chen²

2006

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

143

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does an information user perceive a document as relevant?The literature on relevance has identified numerous factors affecting such a judgment. Taking a cognitive approach, this study focuses on the criteria users employ in making relevance judgment beyond topicality. On the basis of Grice's theory of communication, we propose a five-factor model of relevance: topicality, novelty, reliability, understandability, and scope. Data are collected from a semicontrolled survey and analyzed by following a psychometric procedure. Topicality and novelty are found to be the two essential relevance criteria. Understandability and reliability are also found to be significant, but scope is not. The theoretical and practical implications of this study are discussed.confirmatory studies adopt a positivist perspective and employ a statistical hypothesis-testing procedure, which helps further the test of the validity of identified factors and weed out the insignificant ones (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Unfortunately, almost no study of relevance judgment has adopted a confirmatory approach. Consequently, the importance of many relevance criteria is still unclear.With a focus on users' relevance judgment, the purposes of this study are (1) to identify a set of core relevance criteria using a theory-driven approach and (2) to test the validity of these factors with a rigorous psychometric approach. The rest of the article is organized as follows: We review the literature on relevance and relevance judgment next. After that, we identify a set of core factors based on Grice's (1989) communication theory, which leads us to our research model and hypotheses. The empirical study is then discussed and the data analysis reported. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and empirical implications of our findings.

show abstract

Section: Subjective Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hersh's (1994) study in the medical field advocates the recognition of situational factors in defining what is relevant. In the 1990s, more researchers turned to the situational aspects of this concept (e.g., Barry, 1994;Harter, 1992;Park, 1997).…”

Section: Subjective Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality?

Chen²

2006

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

143

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are compelling arguments in information science that topicality is the first and most important criterion for a relevance judgment. Presence of topicality as a condition for other criteria to operate is widely accepted among researchers (e.g., Cosijn & Ingwersen, 2000;Park, 1997;Schamber, 1994). Froehlich (1994, p. 129) highlighted: "All relevance judgments start with topically relevant materials (which is an appropriate first step of system), but then diverse criteria come into play."…”

Section: Integrating Topicality and Novelty In Relevance Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novelty and topicality in interactive information retrieval

Yin²

2007

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The information science research community is characterized by a paradigm split, with a system-centered cluster working on information retrieval (IR) algorithms and a user-centered cluster working on user behavior. The two clusters rarely leverage each other's insight and strength. One major suggestion from user-centered studies is to treat the relevance judgment of documents as a subjective, multidimensional, and dynamic concept rather than treating it as objective and based on topicality only. This study explores the possibility to enhance users' topicality-based relevance judgment with subjective novelty judgment in interactive IR. A set of systems is developed which differs in the way the novelty judgment is incorporated. In particular, this study compares systems which assume that users' novelty judgment is directed to a certain subtopic area and those which assume that users' novelty judgment is undirected. This study also compares systems which assume that users judge a document based on topicality first and then novelty in a stepwise, noncompensatory fashion and those which assume that users consider topicality and novelty simultaneously and as compensatory to each other. The user study shows that systems assuming directed novelty in general have higher relevance precision, but systems assuming a stepwise judgment process and systems assuming a compensatory judgment process are not significantly different.

show abstract

“…주제성은 적합 성 판단의 기본 조건으로 정의되기도 하였다 (Greisdorf, 2003). Schamber(1991), Hirsh(1999), Choi & Rasmussen(2002) availability Schamber(1991), Barry(1994), Park(1993), Park(1997), Wang & Soregel(1998), Wang & White(1999) 점이 과정에서 기존 연구들 (Barry, 1994;Barry & Schamber, 1998;Bateman, 1998;Choi & Rasmussen, 2002;Hirsh, 1999;Maglaughlin & Sonnewald, 2002;Park, 1993;Park, 1997;Savolainen & Kari, 2006;Schamber, 1991;Spink et al, 1998;Tang & Solomon, 1998;Wang & Soregel, 1998;Wang & White, 1999;Xu & Chen, 2006 …”

Section: 적합성에 관한 연구는 점차 시스템 중심에서unclassified

Users' Relevance Criteria in Universal Search in Korea : An Exploratory Study

Park¹

2012

Journal of the Korean Society for information Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is an exploratory research on the user relevance criteria in Korean search service environments that provide integrated search results. Data were collected from 10 participants using a semi-structured interview technique. The participants conducted a web search using integrated search services, such as Naver or Daum on a self-selected topic. They were asked to judge the relevance of retrieved documents and to report their relevance criteria. As a result, the research indicated 8 user-defined relevance and non-relevance criteria. The research shows that specificity and richness are the two most important criteria yet, the user's relevance criteria have not changed much despite the change in search environment.

show abstract

Relevance of science information: Origins and dimensions of relevance and their implications to information retrieval

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality?

Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality?

Novelty and topicality in interactive information retrieval

Users' Relevance Criteria in Universal Search in Korea : An Exploratory Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About