References
- Albassam, SAA and Ruthven, I. 2018. Users’ relevance criteria for video in leisure contexts. Journal of Documentation, 74(1): 62–79. DOI: 10.1108/JD-06-2017-0081
- Anderson, TD. 2005. Relevance as Process: Judgements in the Context of Scholarly Research. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 10(2): n2.
- Audrey Laplante. 2010. Users’ Relevance Criteria In Music Retrieval In Everyday Life: An Exploratory Study. 11th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, Utrecht, Netherlands,
August 9–13 , pp. 601–606. - Awang, H. 2016. Effects of relevance criteria and subjective factors on web image searching behaviour. Journal of Information Science, 43(6): 786–800. DOI: 10.1177/0165551516666968
- Balatsoukas, P, O’Brien, A and Morris, A. 2010. Design factors affecting relevance judgment behaviour in the context of metadata surrogates. Journal of Information Science, 36(6): 780–797. DOI: 10.1177/0165551510386174
- Balatsoukas, P and Ruthven, I. 2010, August.
What eyes can tell about the use of relevance criteria during predictive relevance judgment? In Proceedings of the third symposium on Information interaction in context. ACM. pp. 389–394. DOI: 10.1145/1840784.1840844 - Balatsoukas, P and Ruthven, I. 2010, October. The use of relevance criteria during predictive judgment: an eye tracking approach. In Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem-Volume 47. American Society for Information Science. p. 73. DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504701145
- Balatsoukas, P and Ruthven, I. 2012. An eye?tracking approach to the analysis of relevance judgments on the Web: The case of Google search engine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9): 1728–1746. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22707
- Bales, S and Wang, P. 2005. Consolidating user relevance criteria: A meta-ethnography of empirical studies. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42(1). DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504201277
- Barry, C. 1994. User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 45(3): 149–159. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<;149::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-J
- Barry, CL and Schamber, L. 1998. Users’ criteria for relevance evaluation: a cross-situational comparison. Information processing & management, 34(2–3): 219–236. DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4573(97)00078-2
- Bucher, HJ and Schumacher, P. 2006. The relevance of attention for selecting news content. An eye-tracking study on attention patterns in the reception of print and online media. Communications, 31(3): 347–368. DOI: 10.1515/COMMUN.2006.022
- Chang, YS and Gwizdka, J. 2018. Relevance criteria dynamics: A study of online news selection on SERPs. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1): 768–769. DOI: 10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501108
- Choi, Y and Rasmussen, EM. 2002. Users’ relevance criteria in image retrieval in american history. Information Processing & Management, 38(5): 695–726. DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4573(01)00059-0
- Cool, C. 1993. Characteristics of text affecting relevance judgments. Automotive News, 17(4): 77–85.
- Crystal, A and Greenberg, J. 2006. Relevance criteria identified by health information users during web searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and, Technology, 57(10): 1368–1382. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20436
- Drori, O. 2003. How to Display Search Results in Digital Libraries-User Study. In NDDL/VVEIS. pp. 13–28.
- Duchowski, AT. 2007. Eye tracking methodology. Theory and practice, 328.
- Dziadosz, S and Chandrasekar, R. 2002. Do thumbnail previews help users make better relevance decisions about web search results? In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval.
ACM . pp. 365–366. DOI: 10.1145/564376.564446 - Faniel, IM and Jacobsen, TE. 2010. Reusing scientific data: How earthquake engineering researchers assess the reusability of colleagues’ data. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 19(3–4): 355–375. DOI: 10.1007/s10606-010-9117-8
- Gao, D and Xiaoyun, X. 2003. Cognitive psychology. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
- Gao, F, Lei, S and Jian, W. 2017. An Exploratory Research on the Relationship Between Agriculture Scientific Data User Relevance Clues and Criteria. Library and Information Service, 15: 72–80. DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2017.15.008
- Gerstberger, PG and Allen, TJ. 1968. Criteria used by research and development engineers in the selection of an information source. Journal of applied psychology, 52(4): 272. DOI: 10.1037/h0026041
- Gwizdka, J. 2014, August. Characterizing relevance with eye-tracking measures. In Proceedings of the 5th Information Interaction in Context Symposium.
ACM . pp. 58–67. DOI: 10.1145/2637002.2637011 - Gwizdka, J and Zhang, Y. 2015, August. Differences in eye-tracking measures between visits and revisits to relevant and irrelevant web pages. In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.
ACM . pp. 811–814. DOI: 10.1145/2766462.2767795 - Hamid, R and Thom, J. 2010. Criteria that have an effect on users while making image relevance judgments. In Fifteenth Australasian Document Computing Symposium,
School of Computer Science and IT, RMIT University , 8. - Hung, TY, Zoeller, C and Lyon, S. 2005,
December. Relevance judgments for image retrieval in the field of journalism: A pilot study . In International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 72–80. DOI: 10.1007/11599517_9 - Ingwersen, P and Järvelin, K. 2011. The turn: Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Berlin, Germany: Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.
- Inskip, C, Macfarlane, A and Rafferty, P. 2010. Creative professional users’ musical relevance criteria. 36(4): 517–529. Sage Publications, Inc. DOI: 10.1177/0165551510374006
- Jacob, RJ and Karn, KS. 2003.
Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises . In The mind’s eye. North-Holland. pp. 573–605. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-03658-3_119 - Liu, J, Wang, J and Zhou, G. 2019. Understanding relevance judgment in the view of perceived value. Library & Information Science Research, 41(4): 100982. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100982
- Lorigo, L, Haridasan, M, Brynjarsdóttir, H, Xia, L, Joachims, T, Gay, G and Pan, B. 2008. Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(7): 1041–1052. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20794
- Maglaughlin, KL and Sonnenwald, DH. 2002. User perspectives on relevance criteria: a comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and, Technology, 53(5): 327–342. DOI: 10.1002/asi.10049
- Marchionini, G, Song, Y and Farrell, R. 2009. Multimedia surrogates for video gisting: Toward combining spoken words and imagery. Information Processing & Management, 45(6): 615–630. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2009.05.007
- Markkula, M and Sormunen, E. 2000. End-user searching challenges indexing practices in the digital newspaper photo archive. Information Retrieval, 1(4): 259–285. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009995816485
- Paek, T, Dumais, S and Logan, R. 2004, April.
WaveLens: A new view onto internet search results . In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM. pp. 727–734. DOI: 10.1145/985692.985784 - Papaeconomou, C, Zijlema, AF and Ingwersen, P. 2008, October. Searchers’ relevance judgments and criteria in evaluating web pages in a learning style perspective. In Proceedings of the second international symposium on Information interaction in context.
ACM . pp. 123–132. DOI: 10.1145/1414694.1414722 - Park, TK. 1993. The nature of relevance in information retrieval: an empirical study. The Library Quarterly, 63(3): 318–351. DOI: 10.1086/602592
- Park, YKS. 2014. User-based Relevance and Irrelevance Criteria during the Task Pursuing of Middle School Students. Korean Society of Documentation and Information, 48(3). DOI: 10.4275/KSLIS.2014.48.3.055
- Pian, W, Khoo, CS and Chang, YK. 2016. The criteria people use in relevance decisions on health information: An analysis of user eye movements when browsing a health Discussion Forum. Journal of medical Internet research, 18(6). DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5513
- Rayner, K. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 62(8): 1457–1506. DOI: 10.1080/17470210902816461
- Rele, RS and Duchowski, AT. 2005, September. Using eye tracking to evaluate alternative search results interfaces. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(15): 1459–1463. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage CA, SAGE Publications . DOI: 10.1177/154193120504901508 - Rieh, SY. 2002. Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 53(2): 145–161. DOI: 10.1002/asi.10017
- Sabbata, SD and Reichenbacher, T. 2012. Criteria of geographic relevance: an experimental study. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(8): 1495–520. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2011.639303
- Saracevic, T. 2015, May. Why is relevance still the basic notion in information science. In Re: inventing Information Science in the Networked Society. Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science. pp. 26–35.
- Saracevic, T. 2016. The notion of relevance in information science: Everybody knows what relevance is. But, what is it really? Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts Retrieval, and Services, 8(3): i–109. DOI: 10.2200/S00723ED1V01Y201607ICR050
- Savolainen, R. 2010. Source preference criteria in the context of everyday projects: Relevance judgments made by prospective home buyers. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 70–92. DOI: 10.1108/00220411011016371
- Savolainen, R and Kari, J. 2006. User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. Journal of Documentation, 62(6): 685–707. DOI: 10.1108/00220410610714921
- Schamber, LJ. 1996. User Criteria in Relevance Evaluation: Toward Development of a Measurement Scale. Asis Meeting.
- Schamber, L and Bateman, J. 1996, October. User criteria in relevance evaluation: Toward development of a measurement scale. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting-American Society for Information Science, Vol. 33: 218–225.
- Sedghi, S, Sanderson, M and Clough, P. 2008. A study on the relevance criteria for medical images. Pattern Recognition Letters, 29(15): 2046–2057. DOI: 10.1016/j.patrec.2008.07.003
- Sedghi, S, Sanderson, M and Clough, P. 2012. How do health care professionals select medical images they need? Aslib Proceedings, 64(4): 437–456. DOI: 10.1108/00012531211244815
- Taylor, A. 2009. Relevance criterion choices in relation to search progress. Dissertations & Theses – Gradworks, 26: 203–208. DOI: 10.7282/T3W959FQ
- Tombros, A. 2003. Searchers’ criteria For assessing web pages. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 385–386. DOI: 10.1145/860435.860513
- Tombros, A, Ruthven, I and Jose, JM. 2014. How users assess web pages for information seeking. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 56(4): 327–344. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20106
- Tsai-Youn, H. 2018. A Study on the Relevance Criteria for Journalistic Images. Journal of Library & Information Science, 44(2): 4.
- Wang, X, Hong, Z, Xu, Y, Zhang, C and Ling, H. 2014. Relevance judgments of mobile commercial information. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7): 1335–1348. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23060
- Wang, P and Soergel, D. 1998. A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2): 115–133. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199802)49:2<;115::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-T
- Watson, CL, Littledyke, M and Parkes, M. 2013. An exploratory study of students’ judgements of the relevance and reliability of information.
https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13471 . - Wei, C, Jian, W and Guilan, Z. 2018. Research on Conceptual Model for Scientific Data User’s Perceived Value Based on Grounded Theory. Journal of Intelligence, 5: 182–188. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1965.2018.05.028
- Westbrook, L. 2001. Faculty relevance criteria: internalized user needs. Library trends, 50(2): 197–206.
- Xie, I and Benoit, E,
III. 2013. Search result list evaluation versus document evaluation: similarities and differences. Journal of Documentation, 69(1): pp. 49–80. DOI: 10.1108/00220411311295324 - Xu, Y and Chen, Z. 2006. Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(7): 961–973. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20361
- Yang, M and Marchionini, G. 2010. Exploring users’ video relevance criteria—a pilot study. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 41(1): 229–238. DOI: 10.1002/meet.1450410127
- Zhang, G, Jian, W and Jianping, L. 2018. The Relationship Between Relevance Criteria and Target Information Type. Journal of Intelligence, 37(6): 171–179. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1965.2018.06.027
- Zhang, G, Wang, J, Zhou, G, Liu, J and Wei, C. 2018, October. Scientific Data Relevance Criteria Classification and Usage. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering.
ACM . p. 30. DOI: 10.1145/3207677.3278010 - Zhonghua, D and Yating, H. 2017. Research on the development of China’s scientific data sharing platform under the “Internet +” environment. Information Studies: Theory & Application, 40(2): 128–132.