Factors affecting relevance judgment: a report from TREC Legal track

– This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task., – Data 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., – This 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., – Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments., – If 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., – This 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.

[1]  Yunjie Calvin Xu,et al.  Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality? , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Michelle Twait,et al.  Undergraduate Students' Source Selection Criteria: A Qualitative Study. , 2005 .

[3]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Relationships between categories of relevance criteria and stage in task completion , 2007, Inf. Process. Manag..

[4]  Mark Baillie,et al.  The relative effects of knowledge, interest and confidence in assessing relevance , 2007, J. Documentation.

[5]  Judy Bateman Modeling the Importance of End-User Relevance Criteria. , 1999 .

[6]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[7]  Dong Wang,et al.  Order effect in relevance judgment , 2008 .

[8]  Jane Greenberg,et al.  Relevance criteria identified by health information users during Web searches , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Rong Tang,et al.  Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: On the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[10]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance , 2000, J. Documentation.

[11]  Tefko Saracevic Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance , 2007 .

[12]  Edie M. Rasmussen,et al.  Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history , 2002, Inf. Process. Manag..

[13]  Carol L. Barry User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study , 1994 .

[14]  Linda Schamber,et al.  Users' Criteria for Evaluation in a Multimedia Environment. , 1991 .

[15]  Diane H. Sonnenwald,et al.  User perspectives on relevance criteria: A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Maureen Weicher,et al.  TREC 2007 Legal Track Interactive Task: A Report from the LIU Team , 2007, TREC.

[17]  T. Saracevic,et al.  Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: nature and manifestations of relevance , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  Carol L. Barry,et al.  Order Effects: A Study of the Possible Influence of Presentation Order on User Judgments of Document Relevance. , 1988 .

[19]  Carol L. Barry,et al.  Users' Criteria for Relevance Evaluation: A Cross-situational Comparison , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[20]  Douglas W. Oard,et al.  Overview of the TREC 2007 Legal Track , 2007, TREC.

[21]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  The influence of document presentation order and number of documents judged on users' judgments of relevance , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[23]  Pia Borlund,et al.  The concept of relevance in IR , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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