Abstract When assessing the relevance of documents, different jurors usually do not completely agree. A simple model is set up to take this fact into account by assuming that the relevance assigned by the juror is a random variable. It leads to some interesting conclusions: The worst possible method to assess the relevance is a mere bisection into relevant and irrelevant. Even an ideal system cannot consistently find all relevant documents and only those, which is empirically well known. The retrieval system should also assign a measure of relevance rather than divide the set of all documents only into those found and those not found; in particular, Boolean operations should be supplemented by a ranking algorithm.
[1]
Aviezri S. Fraenkel,et al.
Legal Information Retrieval
,
1968,
Adv. Comput..
[2]
Michael E. Lesk,et al.
Computer Evaluation of Indexing and Text Processing
,
1968,
JACM.
[3]
Stephen P. Harter,et al.
The Cranfield II Relevance Assessments: A Critical Evaluation
,
1971,
The Library Quarterly.
[4]
Tefko Saracevic.
Selected results from an inquiry into testing of information retrieval systems
,
1971
.
[5]
Gerard Salton,et al.
The SMART Retrieval System—Experiments in Automatic Document Processing
,
1971
.