Paper detail

Implications of Inter-Rater Agreement on a Student Information Retrieval Evaluation

This paper is about an information retrieval evaluation on three different retrieval-supporting services. All three services were designed to compensate typical problems that arise in metadata-driven Digital Libraries, which are not adequately handled by a simple tf-idf based retrieval. The services are: (1) a co-word analysis based query expansion mechanism and re-ranking via (2) Bradfordizing and (3) author centrality. The services are evaluated with relevance assessments conducted by 73 information science students. Since the students are neither information professionals nor domain experts the question of inter-rater agreement is taken into consideration. Two important implications emerge: (1) the inter-rater agreement rates were mainly fair to moderate and (2) after a data-cleaning step which erased the assessments with poor agreement rates the evaluation data shows that the three retrieval services returned disjoint but still relevant result sets.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.