科学数据用户相关性标准研究

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2019.04.014

图书情报工作 ›› 2019, Vol. 63 ›› Issue (4): 112-121.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2019.04.014

科学数据用户相关性标准研究

张贵兰¹, 王健^1,2, 周国民^1,2, 刘建平¹, 韦草原¹

1. 中国农业科学院农业信息研究所北京 100081;
2. 农业农村部农业大数据重点实验室北京 100081

收稿日期:2018-07-03 修回日期:2018-09-17 出版日期:2019-02-20 发布日期:2019-02-20
通讯作者: 王健(ORCID:0000-0003-4958-7669),研究员,博士,通讯作者,E-mail:wangjian01@caas.cn
作者简介:张贵兰(ORCID:0000-0002-9153-3579),博士研究生;周国民,研究员,博士;刘建平(ORCID:0000-0002-1817-5373),博士研究生;韦草原(ORCID:0000-0001-5259-4187),数据分析师,硕士。
基金资助:
本文系中国农业科学院科技创新工程（项目编号：CAAS-ASTIP-2016-AII）和国家社会科学基金项目"科学数据用户相关性标准与使用模式研究"（项目编号：14BTQ056）研究成果之一。

User-defined Relevance Criteria in Scientific Data

Zhang Guilan¹, Wang Jian^1,2, Zhou Guomin^1,2, Liu Jianping¹, Wei Caoyuan¹

1. Agricultural Information Institute of Chinese Academy of Agricultual Sciences, Beijing 100081;
2. Key Laboratory of Agricultural Big Data, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing 100081

Received:2018-07-03 Revised:2018-09-17 Online:2019-02-20 Published:2019-02-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： [目的/意义]以透镜理论为依据，从认知加工的角度出发，研究科学数据用户如何在数据共享平台中选取合适的数据。[方法/过程]研究分两个阶段进行，第一阶段选取14位被试通过半结构化访谈初步获取科学数据相关性标准集合及其使用情况；第二阶段通过发放671份问卷获取相关性标准的重要性，并对第一阶段获取的相关性标准内涵进行验证。[结果/结论]最终得到9个科学数据相关性标准，分别为主题性、可获得性、全面性、时效性、权威性、质量、便利性、规范性和可用性，并对其内涵进行了界定和验证。研究结果发现，全面性和规范性是科学数据的新增标准；可获得性、可用性和便利性存在很强的关联性；质量和规范性存在很强的关联性；质量与权威性虽然不相关，却保持一致的判断趋势。在未来的研究中为真正提升检索效率，改进检索系统，除考虑用户经常使用的标准之外，还要发掘那些使用频率不高但是很重要的标准。

关键词: 科学数据, 信息载体, 相关性, 相关性标准

Abstract: [Purpose/significance] Based on lens theory and from the perspective of cognitive processing, the paper studied how the users of scientific data select relevant data from the data sharing platform. [Method/process] The study was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, a total of 14 subjects were selected to obtain their relevance criteria and usage of scientific data through semi-structured interviews. The level of importance of the relevance criteria was determined, and in the second stage, the concepts of the relevance criteria obtained in the first stage were further verified through 671 questionnaires. [Result/conclusion] Finally, 9 relevance criteria were determined for scientific data:topicality, availability, comprehensiveness, currency, authority, quality, convenience, standardization, and usability, and the defined these concepts. The results showed that comprehensiveness and standardization are unique criteria related to the nature of scientific data. The concepts of convenience, availability, and usability are highly associated. The concepts of quality and authority are irrelevant, but they are consistent in some descriptive phrases. Thus, the concepts that define them must be further clarified. In order to truly make a better data search engine and improve its search efficiency, moving beyond the criteria often used by users, it is necessary to determine those criteria that are not often used, but still very important.

Key words: scientific data, information carrier, relevance, relevance criteria

中图分类号:

G250

张贵兰, 王健, 周国民, 刘建平, 韦草原. 科学数据用户相关性标准研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(4): 112-121.

Zhang Guilan, Wang Jian, Zhou Guomin, Liu Jianping, Wei Caoyuan. User-defined Relevance Criteria in Scientific Data[J]. LIS, 2019, 63(4): 112-121.

参考文献

[1] SCHAMBER L, OTHERS A. A re-examination of relevance:toward a dynamic, situationaldefinition[J]. Information processing & management, 1990, 26(6):755-776.
[2] INGWERSEN P.Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction:elements of a cognitive IR theory[J]. Journal of documentation, 1996, 51(1):3-50.
[3] SCHAMBER L. Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment[C]//Proceedings of the Association for Information Science (ASIS) 54th annual meeting. Washington:ASIS,1991:126-133.
[4] PARK T K. The nature of relevance in information retrieval:an empirical study[J]. Library quarterly, 1993, 63(3):318-351.
[5] BARRY C L. User-defined relevance criteria:an exploratory study[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2010, 45(3):149-159.
[6] BRUCE H W. A cognitive view of the situational dynamism of user-centered relevance estimation[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2010, 45(3):142-148.
[7] WANG P L. The design of document retrieval systems for academic users:implications of studies on users' relevance criteria[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 1997, 34:162-173.
[8] SCHAMBER L,BATEMAN J. User criteria in relevance evaluation:toward development of a measurement scale[C]//Proceedings of the ASIS annual meeting. Baltimore:ASIS,1996:218-225.
[9] BARRY C L, SCHAMBER L. Users' criteria for relevance evaluation:a cross-situational comparison[J]. Information processing & management, 1998, 34(2/3):219-236.
[10] BORLUND P. The concept of relevance in IR[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 54(10):913-925.
[11] SILVERSTEIN C, MARAIS H, HENZINGER M, et al. Analysis of a very large Web search engine query log[J]. ACM sigir forum, 1999, 33(1):6-12.
[12] RIEH S Y. Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2010, 53(2):145-161.
[13] TOMBROS A, RUTHVEN I, JOSE J M. Searchers' criteria for assessing Web pages[C]//International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in informaion retrieval. Toronto:ACM, 2003:385-386.
[14] CRYSTAL A, GREENBERG J. Relevance criteria identified by health information users during Web searches[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 2014, 57(10):1368-1382.
[15] SAVOLAINEN R, KARI J. User-defined relevance criteria in Web searching[J]. Journal of documentation, 2006, 62(6):685-707.
[16] KAMMERER Y, AMANN D G, GERJETS P. When adults without university education search the internet for health information:the roles of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2015, 48(C):297-309.
[17] MARKKULA M, SORMUNEN E. End-user searching challenges indexing practices inthe digital newspaper photo archive[J]. Information retrieval, 2000, 1(4):259-285.
[18] CHOI Y,RASMUSSEN E M.Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history[J]. Information processing & management,2002, 38(5):695-726.
[19] HUNG T Y, ZOELLER C, LYON S. Relevance judgments for image retrieval in the field of journalism:a pilot study[C]//International conference on Asian digital libraries. Berlin:Springer, 2005:72-80.
[20] SEDGHI S, SANDERSON M, CLOUGH P. How do health care professionals select medical images they need?[J]. Aslib proceedings new information perspectives, 2013, 65(1):54-72.
[21] 海斯蒂,道斯. 不确定世界的理性选择[M]. 北京:人民邮电出版社, 2013.
[22] SARACEVIC T. Relevance:a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. part Ⅲ:behavior and effects of relevance[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2014, 58(13):2126-2144.
[23] WATSON C.An exploratory study of secondary students' judgments of the relevance and reliability of information[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(7):1385-1408.
[24] 武秀波. 认知科学概论[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2007.
[25] 高飞, 石蕾, 王健,等. 农业科学数据用户相关性线索与标准之间关系探索[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017,61(15):72-80.
[26] ZIPF G K. Review of human behavior and the principle of least effort:an introduction to human ecology[M]. Cambridge:Addison-Wesley Press, 1949.
[27] WANG P, SOERGEL D. A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. document selection[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology,1998, 49(2):115-133.
[28] HAMID R A, THOM J A, ISKANDAR D A. Effects of relevance criteria and subjective factors on Web image searching behaviour[J]. Journal of information science, 2017, 43(6):786-800.
[29] HIRSH S G. Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources[J]. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 1999, 50(14):1265-1283.
[30] SEDGHI S, SANDERSON M, Clough P. A study on the relevance criteria for medical images[J]. Pattern recognition letters, 2008, 29(15):2046-2057.
[31] PAPAECONOMOU C, ZIJLEMA A F, INGWERSEN P. Searchers' relevance judgments and criteria in evaluating Web pages in a learning style perspective[C]//International symposium on information interaction in context. London:ACM, 2008:123-132.
[32] BALATSOUKAS P, RUTHVEN I. An eye-tracking approach to the analysis of relevance judgments on the Web:the case of Google search engine[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(9):1728-1746.
[33] CHOI Y, RASMUSSEN E M. Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history[J]. Information processing & management, 2002, 38(5):695-726.
[34] BARNES M D, Penrod C., NEIGER B L, et al. Measuring the relevance of evaluation criteria among health information seekers on the Internet[J]. Journal health psychol,2003, 8(1):71-82.
[35] CURLEY S P,CONNELLY D P,RICH E C. Physicians' use of medical knowledge resources:preliminary theoretical framework and findings[J]. Medical decision making,1990, 10(4):231-241.
[36] GERSTBERGER P G,ALLEN T J. Criteria used by research and development engineers in the selection of an information source[J]. Journal of applied psychology,1968, 52(4):272
[37] HARDY A P.The selection of channels when seeking information:cost/benefit vs least-effort[J]. Information processing & management,1982, 18(6):289-293.
[38] 伯格曼. 大数据、小数据、无数据:网络世界的数据学术[M]. 孟小峰等,译. 北京:机械工业出版社,2017
[39] LAPLANTE A. Users' relevance criteria in music retrieval in everyday life:an exploratory study[C]//International Society for Music Information Retrieval conference. Utrecht, Netherlands:DBLP, 2012:601-606.
[40] SARACEVIC T. Relevance:a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information sicence. Part Ⅱ:nature and manifestations of relevance[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58(13):1915-1933
[41] TWAIT M. Undergraduate students' source selection criteria:a qualitative study[J]. Journal of academic librarianship, 2005, 31(6):567-573.
[42] TAYLOR A R, COOL C,BELKIN N J.Relationships between categories of relevance criteria and stage in task completion[J]. Information processing & management,2007, 43(4):1071-1084.
[43] TOMBROS A, RUTHVEN I, JOSE J M. How users assess Web pages for information seeking[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2014, 56(4):327-344.
[44] KLOBAS J E. Beyond information quality:fitness for purpose and electronic information resource use[J]. Journal of information science, 1995, 21(2):95-114.
[45] CAUDLE S L, MARCHAND D. A. Managing information resources:new directions in state government[J]. Information management review, 1990, 166(5):9-30.

科学数据用户相关性标准研究

User-defined Relevance Criteria in Scientific Data

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	王志红, 曹树金. 文本信息检索中相关性判断的次序效应及其情境因素研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(9): 128-140.
[2]	叶兰. 高校图书馆科学数据管理服务能力成熟度模型构建与应用研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(6): 3-14.
[3]	李春秋, 杜博雅, 耿骞, 宋宁远, 李子璇, 原顺梅. 医学科学数据开放平台FAIR原则的应用评估与调查分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(3): 72-82.
[4]	陆丽娜, 尹居峰, 于啸, 尹丽红. 基于联盟链的农业科学数据共享模型构建研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(17): 60-68.
[5]	邱玉红, 焦红, 杨波. 多元数据出版模式下生物医学领域科研人员数据引用行为研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(16): 92-104.
[6]	于会萍, 宛玲. 科学数据存储库的发展态势与推进策略[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(15): 107-115.
[7]	秦成磊, 韩茹雪, 周昊旻, 仲江涛, 章成志. 同行评审意见类型识别及其在不同被引频次下的分布研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(13): 102-117.
[8]	杨宁, 张志强. 科学数据集知识扩散特征探析——以基因表达数据集为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(12): 82-91.
[9]	杨宁, 张志强. 结合计量分析和内容分析的科学数据集使用特征研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(10): 122-130.
[10]	刘越男, 何思源. 科学数据与科研档案的管理协同：调查与思考[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(1): 96-105.
[11]	王宁, 刘越男. 档案学视角下的科学数据管理——基于国际组织相关成果的研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(5): 88-97.
[12]	陈越, 都平平, 周琼. 美国高校科学数据使用协议应用情况调查与启示[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(24): 135-142.
[13]	盛小平, 秦颢洋. 公众科学视角下的科学数据开放共享合作行为分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(23): 4-12.
[14]	盛小平, 孙倩倩. 国内科学数据开放共享主题的作者合作关系与合作研究内容分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(23): 13-21.
[15]	张慧, 程雨琦, 王传清. 科学数据开放共享合作关系实证研究——以北京大学开放研究数据平台为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(23): 22-30.