Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Linh Nhi Phan Minh

dblp:351/9795 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0009-0000-6593-6561ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval
evaluation
0.712023
A Preference Judgment Tool for Authoritative Assessment · SIGIR 2023
Information retrieval › evaluation › relevance judgment
preference judgments
0.712023
A Preference Judgment Tool for Authoritative Assessment · SIGIR 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

heap-like preference judgment algorithm · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 A Preference Judgment Tool for Authoritative Assessment
abstract
Preference judgments have been established as an effective method for offline evaluation of information retrieval systems with advantages to graded or binary relevance judgments. Graded judgments assign each document a pre-defined grade level, while preference judgments involve assessing a pair of items presented side by side and indicating which is better. However, leveraging preference judgments may require a more extensive number of judgments, and there are limitations in terms of evaluation measures. In this study, we present a new preference judgment tool called JUDGO, designed for expert assessors and researchers. The tool is supported by a new heap-like preference judgment algorithm that assumes transitivity and allows for ties. An earlier version of the tool was employed by NIST to determine up to the top-10 best items for each of the 38 topics for the TREC 2022 Health Misinformation track, with over 2,200 judgments collected. The current version has been applied in a separate research study to collect almost 10,000 judgments, with multiple assessors completing each topic. The code and resources are available at https://judgo-system.github.io.
Mahsa Seifikar, Linh Nhi Phan Minh, Negar Arabzadeh, Charles L. A. Clarke, Mark D. Smucker
SIGIR2