Why did you pick that? Visualising relevance criteria in exploratory search

In this article, we present a set of approaches in analysing data gathered during experimentation with exploratory search systems and users’ acts of judging the relevance of the information retrieved by the system. We present three tools for quantitatively analysing encoded qualitative data: relevance-criteria profile, relevance-judgement complexity and session visualisation. Relevance-criteria profiles capture the prominence of each criterion usage with respect to the search sessions of individuals or selected user groups (e.g. groups defined by the users affiliations and/or level of research experience). Relevance-judgement complexity, on the other hand, reflects the number of criteria involved in a single judgment process. Finally, session visualisation brings these results together in a sequential representation of criteria usage and relevance judgements throughout a session, potentially allowing the researcher to quickly detect emerging patterns with respect to interactions, relevance criteria usage and complexity. The use of these tools is demonstrated using results from a pilot-user study that was conducted at the Robert Gordon University in 2008. We conclude by highlighting how these tools might be used to support the improvement of end-user services in digital libraries.

[1]  Peiling Wang,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Document Use During a Research Project. Study II. Decisions at the Reading and Citing Stages , 1999, Journal of the American Society for Information Science.

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

[3]  Peiling Wang,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Document Use During a Research Project. Study II. Decisions at the Reading and Citing Stages , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

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

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

[6]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[7]  Jianhua Lin,et al.  Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy , 1991, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[8]  Colin Ware,et al.  Color sequences for univariate maps: theory, experiments and principles , 1988, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[9]  D. Jameson,et al.  An opponent-process theory of color vision. , 1957, Psychological review.

[10]  Diane Kelly Measuring online information seeking context, Part 2: Findings and discussion , 2006 .

[11]  Cyril W. Cleverdon,et al.  Aslib Cranfield research project - Factors determining the performance of indexing systems; Volume 1, Design; Part 2, Appendices , 1966 .

[12]  Ulises Cervino Beresi Related scientific information: a study on user-defined relevance. , 2011 .

[13]  R. A. Leibler,et al.  On Information and Sufficiency , 1951 .

[14]  Andreas Rauber,et al.  Establishing Context of Digital Objects' Creation, Content and Usage , 2009 .

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

[16]  Reijo Savolainen,et al.  The Sense-Making Theory: Reviewing the Interests of a User-Centred Approach to Information Seeking and Use , 1993, Inf. Process. Manag..

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

[18]  Cyril W. Cleverdon,et al.  Factors determining the performance of indexing systems , 1966 .

[19]  Pia Borlund,et al.  The IIR evaluation model: a framework for evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems , 2003, Inf. Res..