IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/amedoc/v18y1967i3p165-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relevance disagreements and unclear request forms

Author

Listed:
  • John O'Connor

Abstract

Disagreements about the relevance of documents to retrieval requests occur because relevance judges differently interpret requests or documents. Requests may be differently interpreted because they are unclear. Well‐known types of request obscurity are reviewed. Less well known is that a request may be unclear because its form—“documents about subject S,” “documents answering question Q,” etc.—is unclear. Explications are developed of the meanings of the request forms just given and several others. A request of any of the forms discussed is interpreted to be for documents which support statements of a specified kind in a specified way. For example, an “about S” request requires documents supporting statements which contain expression S (though several qualifications are needed); a “question Q” request requires documents which support answers to Q. Examples are given which suggest that some, perhaps all, “about S” requests are unclear. Some ways of formulating clear question requests are given. Various ways in which documents may support statements are distinguished. These depend on such factors as parts of a document used, inference strength, and background knowledge permitted. Some possibly clear support specifications are indicated.

Suggested Citation

  • John O'Connor, 1967. "Relevance disagreements and unclear request forms," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 165-177, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:18:y:1967:i:3:p:165-177
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.5090180310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090180310
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.5090180310?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:18:y:1967:i:3:p:165-177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.