Sentence examples for relevance judgment from inspiring English sources
The legal information retrieval system Lexis-Nexis has supported relevance feedback, at least to the extent that a user has been able to make a relevance judgment for a single highly relevant document and the system has used this feedback for another iteration of ranked retrieval.
When a person judges a document to be relevant to a particular query, or information need, such a judgment is called a relevance judgment.
It demonstrates that relevance judgment mechanisms based on general knowledge are time consuming and cause the failure to solve time-constrained decision problems.
A reason for the variance among users is that users can choose to see or not see the explaining graph for each result, which may bias their relevance judgment.
In addition to operating on high dimensional, spatio-temporal complex patterns, analogy making in humans may also possess a dynamic component that could yield different relevance judgment outcomes, depending of context.
RefMed [ 28] provides a multi-level relevance feedback capability with which searchers can make explicit (i.e., the searcher selects both which documents are relevant and non-relevant) relevance judgments for documents retrieved by a PubMed search.
Systems using implicit relevance judgments do not ask the searcher which documents are relevant, or not, but rather try to infer relevance from observable user behavior, e.g., how long a user looks at a document or whether the user prints the document.
Furthermore, statistical information about documents, queries and their relevance judgments are presented in this paper.
However, little is known about what criteria users employ when making relevance judgments and which textual representations of the image help them make relevance judgments in their situational context.
Evaluation is often based on assembling reference collections consisting of documents, queries and relevance judgments done by humans.
The theory also clarifies the implicit debate in IR literature regarding the nature of error in relevance judgments.
