1 |
Schamber, L., & Bateman, J. (1996). User criteria in relevance evaluation: Toward development of a measurement scale. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 33, 218-225. Medford, NJ: InformationToday.
|
2 |
Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M. B., & Nilan, M. S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26, 755-775.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
3 |
Taylor, A. R., Cool, C., Belkin, N. J., & Amadio, W. J. (2007). Relationships between categories of relevance criteria and stage in task completion. Information Processing & Management, 43, 1071-1084.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
4 |
Wang, P., & 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, 115-133.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
5 |
Wang, P., & White, M. D. (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a research project: Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 98-144.
DOI
|
6 |
Xu, Y., & Chen, Z. (2006). Relevance judgmen t- What do information consumers consider beyond topicality? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 961-973.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
7 |
Yang, M., & Marchionini, G. (2004). Exploring users' video relevance criteria - A pilot study. Proceedings of the 67th annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST '04), 229-238. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
|
8 |
Park, T. K. (1994). Toward a theory of user-based relevance: A call for a new paradigm of inquiry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 135-141.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
9 |
Park, H. (1997). Relevance of science information: Origins and dimensions of relevance and their implications to information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 33, 339-352.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
10 |
Rees, A. M., & Schultz, D. G. (1967). A field experiment approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching, 2. Cleveland, OH: Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University.
|
11 |
Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26, 321-343.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
12 |
Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2126-2144.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
13 |
Savolainen, R., & Kari, J. (2006). User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. Journal of Documentation, 62, 685-707.
DOI
|
14 |
Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Washington, DC, 126-133. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
|
15 |
Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST), 3-48. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
|
16 |
Froehlich, T. J. (1994). Relevance reconsidered: Towards an agenda for the 21st century: Introduction to special topic issue on relevance research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 124-134.
DOI
|
17 |
Greisdorf, H. (2003). Relevance thresholds: A multi-stage predictive model of how users evaluate information. Information Processing & Management, 39, 403-423.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
18 |
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
|
19 |
Hirsh, S. G. (1999). Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 1265-1283.
DOI
|
20 |
Hjørland, B., & Christensen, F. S. (2002). Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance: A specific example.
|
21 |
Maglaughlin, K. L., & Sonnewald, H. (2002). User perspective on relevance criteria: A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 327-342.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
22 |
Mizzaro, S. (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 810-832.
DOI
|
23 |
Moon, I., & Woyke, E. (2006, January 30). NHN: The little search engine that could. Businessweek.
|
24 |
Park, T. K. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63, 318-351.
DOI
|
25 |
Bilal, D. (2000). Children's use of the Yahooligans! web search engine: I. Cognitive, physical and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 646-65.
DOI
|
26 |
Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 913-925.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
27 |
Choi, Y., & Rasmussen, E. M. (2002). Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history. Information Processing & Management, 38, 695-726.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
28 |
Cuadra, C. A., & Katter, R.V. (1967a). Experimental studies of relevance judgments: Final report. Volume 1: Project summary (TM-3520/001/00). Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corp.
|
29 |
Cooper, W. S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7, 19-37.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
30 |
Cosijn, E., & Ingwersen, P. (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36, 533-550.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
31 |
Cuadra, C. A., & Katter, R.V. (1967b). Opening the black box of "relevance". Journal of Documentation, 23, 291-303.
DOI
|
32 |
Fitzgerald, M. A., & Galloway, C. (2001). Relevance judging, evaluation, and decision making in virtual library: A descriptive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 989-1010.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
33 |
Freund, L. (2008). Exploiting task-document relations in support of information retrieval in the workplace. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
|
34 |
Bateman, J. (1998). Changes in relevance criteria: A longitudinal study. In: ASIS Proceedings. 1998, 23-32.
|
35 |
박소연, 이준호 (2008). 주요 검색 포탈들의 통합 검색 서비스 비교 평가. 한국도서관․정보학회지, 39, 265-278.(Park, Soyeon, & Lee, Joon-Ho. (2008). Comparative Evaluation of the Unified Search Services Provided by Major Korean Search Portals. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 39, 265-278.)
과학기술학회마을
|
36 |
Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 149-159.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
37 |
Barry, C. L., & Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34, 219-236.
DOI
ScienceOn
|