The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems
Abstract
This paper presents a set of basic components which constitutes the experimental setting intended for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval (IIR) systems, the aim of which is to facilitate evaluation of IIR systems in a way which is as close as possible to realistic IR processes. The experimental setting consists of three components: (1) the involvement of potential users as test persons; (2) the application of dynamic and individual information needs; and (3) the use of multidimensional and dynamic relevance judgements. Hidden under the information need component is the essential central sub‐component, the simulated work task situation, the tool that triggers the (simulated) dynamic information needs. This paper also reports on the empirical findings of the metaevaluation of the application of this sub‐component, the purpose of which is to discover whether the application of simulated work task situations to future evaluation of IIR systems can be recommended. Investigations are carried out to determine whether any search behavioural differences exist between test persons‘ treatment of their own real information needs versus simulated information needs. The hypothesis is that if no difference exists one can correctly substitute real information needs with simulated information needs through the application of simulated work task situations. The empirical results of the meta‐evaluation provide positive evidence for the application of simulated work task situations to the evaluation of IIR systems. The results also indicate that tailoring work task situations to the group of test persons is important in motivating them. Furthermore, the results of the evaluation show that different versions of semantic openness of the simulated situations make no difference to the test persons’ search treatment.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES OF INFORMATION RETRIEVAL INTERACTION: ELEMENTS OF A COGNITIVE IR THEORY
INGWERSEN, P. (1996) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eb026960 · Cited by 717
Cited by
Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques
Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2002) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/582415.582418 · Cited by 4,841
How users assess Web pages for information seeking
Tombros, A., Ruthven, I., & Jose, J. M. (2005) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20106 · Cited by 202
Kim, J. (2012) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2012.04.002 · Cited by 25
Alluqmani, A., Harvey, M. A., & Zhang, Z. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3563657.3595978 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Borlund, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Documentation
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2000-02-01
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-90
- ISSN
- 0022-0418 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2041126289
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.