INLS
180 Day 15 Notes
February
26, 2002
Big Points
Relevance
(pertinence, quality, topicality, aboutness, etc.)
The reference librarian can
work to help clients achieve psychological relevance…machines likely cannot
Give
users more control over IR to increase performance
Questions
Can we get beyond binary relevance
judgments for IR evaluation?
How to define/determine the
‘expertise’ of relevance judges?
Does consensus/popularity mean
quality/correctness/accuracy?
Can we measure the authority/quality
of a source before it gets distributed/used?
Are documents that have been seen
and used before considered ‘relevant’
[to a query? To a need?]
Can we assess the USE people make of
info to determine relevance? [e.g., citations in papers]
How can irrelevance be
relevant? Change in mental state is too
broad for relevance.
Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and the new media like real people and places. NY: Cambridge University Press. (Preface ix-xiii, Chapter 1 p 3-15, and Chapter 23 p251-256.) (Jessica Kilfoil and Kristy Irvin)
4. One-minute
paper
What was the big point you
learned in class today?
What is the main, unanswered
question you leave class with today?