Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Greisdorf, H."
  • × author_ss:"Spink, A."
  1. Spink, A.; Greisdorf, H.: Users' partial relevance judgements during online searching (1997) 0.01 
    0.0051002675 = product of:
  0.02040107 = sum of:
    0.02040107 = weight(_text_:information in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02040107 = score(doc=623,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 623, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=623)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Reports results of research to examine users conducting their initial online search on a particular information problem. Findings from 3 separate studies of relevance judgements by 44 initial search users were examined, including 2 studies of 13 end users and a study of 18 user engaged in mediated online searches. Number of items was judged on the scale 'relevant', 'patially relevant' and 'not rlevant'. Results suggest that: a relationship exists between partially rlevant items retrieved anch changes in the users' information problem or question during an information seeking process; partial relevance judgements play an important role for users in the early stages of seeking information on a particular information problem; and 'highly' relevant items may or may not be the only items useful at the early stages of users' information seeking processes
  2. Spink, A.; Greisdorf, H.: Partial relevance judgements and changes in users information problems during online searching (1997) 0.01 
    0.0050479556 = product of:
  0.020191822 = sum of:
    0.020191822 = weight(_text_:information in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020191822 = score(doc=316,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Imprint
    Medford, NJ : Information Today
  3. Spink, A.; Greisdorf, H.: Regions and levels : Measuring and mapping users' relevance judgements (2001) 0.00 
    0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=5586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5586)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The dichotomous bipolar approach to relevance has produced an abundance of information retrieval (M) research. However, relevance studies that include consideration of users' partial relevance judgments are moving to a greater relevance clarity and congruity to impact the design of more effective [R systems. The study reported in this paper investigates the various regions of across a distribution of users' relevance judgments, including how these regions may be categorized, measured, and evaluated. An instrument was designed using four scales for collecting, measuring, and describing enduser relevance judgments. The instrument was administered to 21 end-users who conducted searches on their own information problems and made relevance judgments on a total of 1059 retrieved items. Findings include: (1) overlapping regions of relevance were found to impact the usefulness of precision ratios as a measure of IR system effectiveness, (2) both positive and negative levels of relevance are important to users as they make relevance judgments, (3) topicality was used more to reject rather than accept items as highly relevant, (4) utility was more used to judge items highly relevant, and (5) the nature of relevance judgment distribution suggested a new IR evaluation measure-median effect. Findings suggest that the middle region of a distribution of relevance judgments, also called "partial relevance," represents a key avenue for ongoing study. The findings provide implications for relevance theory, and the evaluation of IR systems
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.2, S.161-173

Years