ON THE HOLISTIC COGNITIVE THEORY FOR INFORMATION RETRIEVAL Drifting Outside the Border of the Laboratory Framework

The paper demonstrates how the Laboratory Research Framework fits into the holistic Cognitive Framework for IR. It first discusses the Laboratory Framework with emphasis on its underlying assumptions and known limitations. This is followed by a view of interaction and relevance phenomena associated with IR evaluation and central to the understan ding of IR. The ensuing section outlines how interactive IR is viewed from a Cognitive Framework, and ' light' interactive IR experiments are suggested performed by drawing on the latter framework' s contextual possibilities. These include independent variables drawn from a c ollection, m atching p rinciples i n a r etrieval s ystem, a nd t he s earcher' s s ituation a nd t ask c ontext. T he paper ends with concluding points of summarization for of issues encountered.

[1]  C. H. W. BIGGS,et al.  Scientific Research , 1870, Nature.

[2]  D. C. Englebart,et al.  Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework , 1962 .

[3]  Douglas C. Engelbart,et al.  Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework , 1962 .

[4]  Don R. Swanson,et al.  Probabilistic models for automatic indexing , 1974, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[5]  Cyril Cleverdon,et al.  Optimizing convenient online access to bibliographic databases , 1984 .

[6]  Peter Willett,et al.  Recent trends in hierarchic document clustering: A critical review , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[7]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Introduction to Informetrics: Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science , 1990 .

[8]  Paul Nicholls,et al.  Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science , 1991 .

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

[10]  Robert Burgin.  Variations in Relevance Judgments and the Evaluation of Retrieval Performance , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[11]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Information Retrieval Interaction , 1992 .

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

[13]  Slava M. Katz.  Distribution of content words and phrases in text and language modelling , 1996, Natural Language Engineering.

[14]  S. Robertson.  The probability ranking principle in IR , 1997 .

[15]  Mark Magennis,et al.  The potential and actual effectiveness of interactive query expansion , 1997, SIGIR '97.

[16]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  The impact of query structure and query expansion on retrieval performance , 1998, SIGIR '98.

[17]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness , 1998, SIGIR '98.

[18]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Measures of relative relevance and ranked half-life: performance indicators for interactive IR , 1998, SIGIR '98.

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

[20]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents , 2000, SIGIR '00.

[21]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Dimensions of relevance , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[22]  Pia Borlund,et al.  Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems , 2000, J. Documentation.

[23]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Evaluation by highly relevant documents , 2001, SIGIR '01.

[24]  Rogers Brubaker.  Cognitive Perspectives , 2001 .

[25]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques , 2002, TOIS.

[26]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  K. Järvelin,et al.  EVALUATING INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS UNDER THE CHALLENGES OF INTERACTION AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL DYNAMIC RELEVANCE , 2002 .

[28]  Eero Sormunen,et al.  Liberal relevance criteria of TREC -: counting on negligible documents? , 2002, SIGIR '02.

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

[30]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  Searchers' criteria For assessing web pages , 2003, SIGIR '03.

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

[32]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Changes in Search Tactics and Relevance Judgements when Preparing a Research Proposal A Summary of the Findings of a Longitudinal Study , 2001, Information Retrieval.

[33]  C. J. van Rijsbergen,et al.  The geometry of information retrieval , 2004 .

[34]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  Binary and graded relevance in IR evaluations--Comparison of the effects on ranking of IR systems , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[35]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The Turn - Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context , 2005, The Kluwer International Series on Information Retrieval.

[36]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  How users assess Web pages for information seeking , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[37]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Evaluating implicit feedback models using searcher simulations , 2005, TOIS.

[38]  Ryen W. White.  Using searcher simulations to redesign a polyrepresentative implicit feedback interface , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[39]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  The Effects of Relevance Feedback Quality and Quantity in Interactive Relevance Feedback: A Simulation Based on User Modeling , 2006, ECIR.

[40]  Mette Skov,et al.  Inter and intra-document contexts applied in polyrepresentation , 2006, IIiX.

[41]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  The polyrepresentation continuum in IR , 2006, IIiX.

[42]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  An analysis of two approaches in information retrieval: From frameworks to study designs , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[43]  Kalervo Järvelin.  An analysis of two approaches in information retrieval: From frameworks to study designs , 2007 .