From Highly Relevant to Not Relevant: Examining Different Regions of Relevance

Abstract User relevance judgments are central to both the systems and user-oriented approaches to information retrieval (IR) systems research and development. User-oriented relevance research has also operated on two largely unconnected tracks. First, a relevance level track that examines users' criteria for relevance judgments. Second, a regions of relevance track that examines the measurement of users' relevance judgments. Users judgments and criteria for highly relevant items have been central issues for much of the relevance research. Findings are presented from four separate studies of relevance judgments by 55 users, conducting their initial online search on a particular information problem. In three studies, the number of items judged “partially” relevant (on a scale of relevant, partially relevant or not relevant) was positively correlated with different aspects of changes in users', including: (1) information problem definition, (2) search intermediaries' perceptions that a user's question and information problem has changed during the mediated search interaction, (3) personal knowledge due to the search interaction, and (4) criteria for making relevance judgments. Users with high knowledge and topic levels were more likely to judge items as highly relevant. Differences between users' criteria for highly, partially and non-relevant items are also identified. Findings suggest the need to expand the framework for relevance research and further identify the characteristics of the middle region of relevance or partial relevance as: (1) partially relevant items may play an important role in the early stages of a user's information seeking process over time for a particular information problem and (2) a relationship may exist between partially relevant items retrieved and changes in users' information problems during an information seeking process. Results also suggest that partially relevant items may be useful at the early stages of users' information seeking processes. We propose a useful concept of relevance as a relationship and an effect on the movement of a user through the iterative stages of their information seeking process. Users' relevance judgments can also be plotted on a three-dimensional spatial model of relevance level, region and time. Implications for the development of IR systems, searching practice and relevance research are also discussed.

[1]  John O'Connor Some independent agreements and resolved disagreements about answer‐providing documents , 1969 .

[2]  William S. Cooper,et al.  On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[3]  Michael B. Eisenberg,et al.  DICHOTOMOUS RELEVANCE JUDGMENTS AND THE EVALUATION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS. , 1987 .

[4]  Donna K. Harman The First Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-1), Rockville, MD, USA, 4-6 November 1992 , 1993, Inf. Process. Manag..

[5]  Linda Schamber Relevance and Information Behavior. , 1994 .

[6]  T. Park The Nature of Relevance in Information Retrieval: An Empirical Study , 1993, The Library Quarterly.

[7]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  Document Familiarity, Relevance, and Bradford's Law: the Getty Online Searching Project Report Number 5 , 1996, Inf. Process. Manag..

[8]  Gregory B. Newby,et al.  An investigation of the role of navigation for information retrieval , 1992 .

[9]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Ask for Information Retrieval: Part I. Background and Theory , 1997, J. Documentation.

[10]  Mukerrem Cakmak,et al.  International Center for Mechanical Sciences , 1994 .

[11]  Tefko Saracevic,et al.  Evaluation of evaluation in information retrieval , 1995, SIGIR '95.

[12]  William S. Cooper,et al.  On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness part II. Implementation of the philosophy , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[13]  Carol L. Barry User-Defined Relevance Criteria: An Exploratory Study , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[14]  Michael B. Eisenberg,et al.  A re-examination of relevance: toward a dynamic, situational definition , 1990, Inf. Process. Manag..

[15]  Steve Smithson,et al.  The evaluation of information retrieval systems: a case study approach , 1990 .

[16]  Donna Harman,et al.  The First Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-1) , 1993 .

[17]  Isola Ajiferuke,et al.  A total relevance and document interaction effects model for the evaluation of information retrieval processes , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[18]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems , 1997, J. Documentation.

[19]  Joseph Janes,et al.  Relevance Judgments of Actual Users and Secondary Judges: A Comparative Study , 1992, The Library Quarterly.

[20]  C. D. Gull Seven years of work on the organization of materials in the special library , 1956 .

[21]  Frederick Williams,et al.  Reasoning With Statistics: How To Read Quantitative Research , 1986 .

[22]  Paul B. Kantor,et al.  A study of information seeking and retrieving. I. background and methodology , 1988 .

[23]  Amanda Spink Study of interactive feedback during mediated information retrieval , 1997 .

[24]  Donna K. Harman,et al.  Relevance feedback revisited , 1992, SIGIR '92.

[25]  Michael Eisenberg,et al.  Order effects: A study of the possible influence of presentation order on user judgments of document relevance , 1988, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[26]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Ask for Information Retrieval: Part II. Results of a Design Study , 1982, J. Documentation.

[27]  Hong Xie,et al.  Planned and Situated Aspects in Interactive IR: Patterns of User Interactive Intentions and Information Seeking Strategies , 1997 .

[28]  Robert M. Losee,et al.  Feedback in Information Retrieval. , 1996 .

[29]  David Ellis The Dilemma of Measurement in Information Retrieval Research , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[30]  Karen Spärck Jones Reflections on TREC , 1995, Inf. Process. Manag..

[31]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Cognitive Perspectives of Information Retrieval Interaction: Elements of a Cognitive IR Theory , 1996, J. Documentation.

[32]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Elicitation Behavior During Mediated Information Retrieval , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[33]  Tefko Saracevic,et al.  RELEVANCE: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[34]  Louise T. Su Evaluation Measures for Interactive Information Retrieval , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[35]  Stephen P. Harter,et al.  Variations in Relevance Assessments and the Measurement of Retrieval Effectiveness , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[36]  David Ellis,et al.  Theory and explanation in information retrieval research , 1984 .

[37]  M. Rorvig Psychometric measurement and information retrieval , 1988 .

[38]  T. D. Wilson,et al.  Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective , 1997, Inf. Process. Manag..

[39]  B. Dervin,et al.  Information needs and uses. , 1986 .

[40]  Michael B. Eisenberg Measuring relevance judgments , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[41]  Stephen P. Harter,et al.  Psychological Relevance and Information Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[42]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Exploration into stages in the information search process in online information retrieval: communication between users and intermediaries , 1992 .

[43]  Susan Dunman,et al.  Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services , 1996 .

[44]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  On the Evaluation of IR Systems , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[45]  Tm American Documentation Institute , 1937, Nature.

[46]  Beth Sandore Online Searching: What Measure Satisfaction?. , 1990 .

[47]  Miranda Lee Pao,et al.  Term and Citation Retrieval: A Field Study , 1993, Inf. Process. Manag..

[48]  David Ellis,et al.  A Behavioural Approach to Information Retrieval System Design , 1989, J. Documentation.

[49]  John J. Regazzi Performance measures for information retrieval systems - an experimental approach , 1988, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[50]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Multiple Search Sessions Model of End-User Behavior: An Exploratory Study , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[51]  Linda Schamber Users' criteria for evaluation in multimedia information seeking and use situations , 1991 .

[52]  David Robins,et al.  Shifts of Focus in Information Retrieval Interaction. , 1997 .