Maglaughlin, K.L.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: User perspectives an relevance criteria : a comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgements (2002)
0.00
0.002269176 = product of:
0.004538352 = sum of:
0.004538352 = product of:
0.009076704 = sum of:
0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009076704 = score(doc=5201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this issue Maglaughin and Sonnenwald provided 12 graduate students with searches related to the student's work and asked them to judge the twenty most recent retrieved representations by highlighting passages thought to contribute to relevance, marking out passages detracting from relevance, and providing a relevant, partially relevant or relevant judgement on each. By recorded interview they were asked about how these decisions were made and to describe the three classes of judgement. The union of criteria identified in past studies did not seem to fully capture the information supplied so a new set was produced and coding agreement found to be adequate. Twenty-nine criteria were identified and grouped into six categories based upon the focus of the criterion. Multiple criteria are used for most judgements, and most criteria may have either a positive or negative effect. Content was the most frequently mentioned criterion.
- Type
- a
