Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The concept of relevance in IR

Open access
Borlund, Pia·2003·Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Abstract

This article introduces the concept of relevance as viewed and applied in the context of IR evaluation, by presenting an overview of the multidimensional and dynamic nature of the concept. The literature on relevance reveals how the relevance concept, especially in regard to the multidimensionality of relevance, is many faceted, and does not just refer to the various relevance criteria users may apply in the process of judging relevance of retrieved information objects. From our point of view, the multidimensionality of relevance explains why some will argue that no consensus has been reached on the relevance concept. Thus, the objective of this article is to present an overview of the many different views and ways by which the concept of relevance is used—leading to a consistent and compatible understanding of the concept. In addition, special attention is paid to the type of situational relevance. Many researchers perceive situational relevance as the most realistic type of user relevance, and therefore situational relevance is discussed with reference to its potential dynamic nature, and as a requirement for interactive information retrieval (IIR) evaluation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.10286

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. 10.1016/S0306-4573(97)00078-2 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<149::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-J · DOI
  3. Bateman J.(1998).Changes in relevance criteria: A longitudinal study. In: ASIS Proceedings.1998(pp.23–32).
  4. Belkin N.J., 1977, International workshop on the cognitive viewpoint, 187
  5. 10.1108/eb026653 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1108/EUM0000000007198 · DOI
  7. Borlund P., 1998, Measures of relative relevance and ranked half‐life: Performance indicators for interactive IR, 324
  8. Borlund P., 2000, Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Doctoral dissertation, Åbo Akademi University
  9. 10.1108/EUM0000000007110 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Brookes B.C., 1975, Problems of information science, FID 530, 115
  11. Brookes B.C., 1977, International workshop on the cognitive viewpoint, 195
  12. 10.1177/016555158000200302 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<142::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-6 · DOI
  14. Campbell I., 1996, The ostensive model of developing information needs, 251
  15. Cleverdon C.W., 1960, Aslib Cranfield research project: Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems
  16. 10.1016/0020-0271(71)90024-6 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1177/002224378001700401 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00072-2 · DOI
  19. Cuadra C.A., 1967, Project summary (TM‐3520/001/00)
  20. 10.1108/eb026436 · DOI
  21. De Mey M., 1980, Theory and application of information research, 49
  22. Doyle L.B.(1963).Is Relevance an adequate criterion in retrieval system evaluation?Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute; 26th annual meeting (pp.199–200). Chicago IL.
  23. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198809)39:5<293::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-I · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(198809)39:5<293::aid-asi1>3.0.co;2-i
  24. Eisenberg M. &Hu X.(1987).Dichotomous relevance judgments and the evaluation of information systems. In: ASIS Proceedings (pp.66–69).
  25. Eisenberg M. &Schamber L.(1988).Relevance: The Search for a definition. In ASIS Proceedings (pp.164–168).
  26. 10.1016/0306-4573(88)90042-8 · DOI
  27. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<124::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-8 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199404)45:3<124::aid-asi2>3.0.co;2-8
  28. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199510)46:9<646::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-1 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199510)46:9<646::aid-asi2>3.0.co;2-1
  29. 10.1002/asi.5090070408 · DOI
  30. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<602::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-Q · DOI
  31. Hjørland B., 1997, Information seeking and subject representation: An activity–theoretical approach to information science
  32. 10.2307/3150242 · doi:10.2307/3150242 · Paper page
  33. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<160::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-4 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199404)45:3<160::aid-asi6>3.0.co;2-4
  34. Järvelin K., 2000, IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents, 41
  35. Kuhlthau C.C., 1993, Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information science
  36. 10.1002/asi.4630200204 · DOI
  37. Lemon N., 1973, Attitudes and their measurement
  38. 10.1016/S0953-5438(98)00012-5 · doi:10.1016/s0953-5438(98)00012-5
  39. 10.1016/0306-4573(93)90026-A · DOI
  40. 10.1086/602592 · DOI
  41. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<135::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-1 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199404)45:3<135::aid-asi3>3.0.co;2-1
  42. Reid J., 1999, A New, task‐oriented paradigm for information retrieval: Implications for evaluation of information retrieval systems, 97
  43. 10.1016/0306-4573(92)90004-J · DOI
  44. Robins D.(1997).Shifts of focus in information retrieval interaction. In ASIS Proceedings (pp.123–134).
  45. Saracevic T.(1969).Comparative effects of titles abstracts and full texts on relevance judgments. In ASIS Proceedings (pp.293–299).
  46. 10.1002/asi.4630260604 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Saracevic T., 1996, Relevance Reconsidered '96, 201
  48. Saracevic T. &Su L.(1989).Modelling and measuring user–intermediary–computer interaction online searching: Design of study. In ASIS Proceedings (pp.75–80).
  49. Schamber L., 1994, Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST), 3
  50. 10.1016/0306-4573(90)90050-C · DOI · Paper page
  51. Sperber D., 1986, Relevance: Communication and cognition
  52. 10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00025-9 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/0306-4573(92)90007-M · DOI
  54. 10.1086/620653 · DOI
  55. 10.1086/601800 · doi:10.1086/601800
  56. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:3<254::AID-ASI8>3.0.CO;2-Y · DOI
  57. 10.1016/S0306-4573(97)00081-2 · DOI
  58. 10.1108/eb026215 · DOI
  59. 10.1108/EUM0000000007127 · DOI
  60. van Rijsbergen C.J., 1979, Information retrieval
  61. Voorhees E., 2001, Evaluation by highly relevant documents, 41
  62. Voorhees E.M., 1998, Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness, 315
  63. 10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00010-8 · DOI · Paper page
  64. 10.1016/0020-0271(73)90096-X · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Borlund, P.
Venue
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-05-07
Volume
54
Issue
10
Pages
913-925
ISSN
  • 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2890
OpenAlex
W2048987619
Cited by
482
References
2
FWCI
38.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.