The consistency of human judgments of relevance

A. Resnick and T. R. Savage

American Documentation, 1964, vol. 15, issue 2, 93-95

Abstract: A comparison of the ability of humans to consistently judge the relevance of documents to their general interests from bases of citations, abstracts, keywords, and total text was made under controlled experimental conditions. The results showed that 1) humans are able to make such judgments consistently, and 2) the consistency of the judgment is independent of the particular base from which it is made. Apparent inconsistency arising from judgments made on the basis of abstracts remains unexplained. This experiment, as well as others concerned with human evaluations of text material, leave unexplored the basic problem of providing a metric scale on which such evaluations can be measured.

Date: 1964
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090150206

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:15:y:1964:i:2:p:93-95

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1936-6108

Access Statistics for this article

American Documentation is currently edited by Javed Mostafa

More articles in American Documentation from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().