Factors affecting relevance judgment: a report from TREC Legal track

Author:

Chu Heting

Abstract

PurposeThis study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task.Design/methodology/approachData were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process.FindingsThis study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment.Research limitations/implicationsRelevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments.Practical implicationsIf multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short‐term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions.Originality/valueThis study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems

Reference24 articles.

1. Barry, C.L. (1994), “User‐defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 149‐59.

2. Barry, C.L. and Schamber, L. (1998), “Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: a cross‐situational comparison”, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 34 Nos 2/3, pp. 219‐36.

3. Bateman, J. (1999), “Modeling the importance of end‐user relevance criteria”, Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 36, pp. 396‐406.

4. Borlund, P. (2003), “The concept of relevance”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 913‐25.

5. Choi, Y. and Rasumussen, E.M. (2002), “Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history”, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 695‐726.

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. A systematic review of multidimensional relevance estimation in information retrieval;WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery;2024-05-07

2. Understanding Relevance Judgments in Legal Case Retrieval;ACM Transactions on Information Systems;2023-02-07

3. Cross-Domain Contract Element Extraction with a Bi-directional Feedback Clause-Element Relation Network;Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval;2021-07-11

4. User Assessment of Webpage Usefulness;Lecture Notes in Computer Science;2021

5. Pioneering models for information interaction in the context of information seeking and retrieval;Journal of Documentation;2018-04-26

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3