相关性很难吗?:对相关评估工作的评价

R. Villa, Martin Halvey
{"title":"相关性很难吗?:对相关评估工作的评价","authors":"R. Villa, Martin Halvey","doi":"10.1145/2484028.2484150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The judging of relevance has been a subject of study in information retrieval for a long time, especially in the creation of relevance judgments for test collections. While the criteria by which assessors? judge relevance has been intensively studied, little work has investigated the process individual assessors go through to judge the relevance of a document. In this paper, we focus on the process by which relevance is judged, and in particular, the degree of effort a user must expend to judge relevance. By better understanding this effort in isolation, we may provide data which can be used to create better models of search. We present the results of an empirical evaluation of the effort users must exert to judge the relevance of document, investigating the effect of relevance level and document size. Results suggest that 'relevant' documents require more effort to judge when compared to highly relevant and not relevant documents, and that effort increases as document size increases.","PeriodicalId":178818,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is relevance hard work?: evaluating the effort of making relevant assessments\",\"authors\":\"R. Villa, Martin Halvey\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2484028.2484150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The judging of relevance has been a subject of study in information retrieval for a long time, especially in the creation of relevance judgments for test collections. While the criteria by which assessors? judge relevance has been intensively studied, little work has investigated the process individual assessors go through to judge the relevance of a document. In this paper, we focus on the process by which relevance is judged, and in particular, the degree of effort a user must expend to judge relevance. By better understanding this effort in isolation, we may provide data which can be used to create better models of search. We present the results of an empirical evaluation of the effort users must exert to judge the relevance of document, investigating the effect of relevance level and document size. Results suggest that 'relevant' documents require more effort to judge when compared to highly relevant and not relevant documents, and that effort increases as document size increases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":178818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"36\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

摘要

相关性判断一直是信息检索领域的一个研究课题,特别是在测验集相关性判断的创建方面。而评估员的标准是什么呢?法官相关性已经得到了深入的研究,很少有工作调查个别评估人员判断文件相关性的过程。在本文中,我们关注的是判断相关性的过程,特别是用户必须花费多少精力来判断相关性。通过更好地理解这种孤立的努力,我们可以提供可用于创建更好的搜索模型的数据。我们提出了对用户判断文档相关性所付出的努力的实证评估结果,调查了相关性水平和文档大小的影响。结果表明,与高度相关和不相关的文档相比,判断“相关”文档需要更多的努力,而且随着文档大小的增加,这种努力也会增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is relevance hard work?: evaluating the effort of making relevant assessments
The judging of relevance has been a subject of study in information retrieval for a long time, especially in the creation of relevance judgments for test collections. While the criteria by which assessors? judge relevance has been intensively studied, little work has investigated the process individual assessors go through to judge the relevance of a document. In this paper, we focus on the process by which relevance is judged, and in particular, the degree of effort a user must expend to judge relevance. By better understanding this effort in isolation, we may provide data which can be used to create better models of search. We present the results of an empirical evaluation of the effort users must exert to judge the relevance of document, investigating the effect of relevance level and document size. Results suggest that 'relevant' documents require more effort to judge when compared to highly relevant and not relevant documents, and that effort increases as document size increases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Search engine switching detection based on user personal preferences and behavior patterns Workshop on benchmarking adaptive retrieval and recommender systems: BARS 2013 A test collection for entity search in DBpedia Sentiment analysis of user comments for one-class collaborative filtering over ted talks A document rating system for preference judgements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1