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

Dawn M. Tice

dblp:61/4240 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2000
—ORCID · none

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1

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 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval
evaluation
0.012000
Building a question answering test collection · SIGIR 2000
Information retrieval
question answering
0.012000
Building a question answering test collection · SIGIR 2000
Information retrieval › evaluation › task-based evaluation
question answering evaluation
0.012000
Building a question answering test collection · SIGIR 2000
Information retrieval › evaluation › test collection
test collection construction
0.012000
Building a question answering test collection · SIGIR 2000
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2000 The TREC-8 Question Answering Track
Ellen M. Voorhees, Dawn M. Tice
LREC2
2000 Building a question answering test collection
abstract
The TREC-8 Question Answering (QA) Track was the first large-scale evaluation of domain-independent question answering systems. In addition to fostering research on the QA task, the track was used to investigate whether the evaluation methodology used for document retrieval is appropriate for a different natural language processing task. As with document relevance judging, assessors had legitimate differences of opinions as to whether a response actually answers a question, but comparative evaluation of QA systems was stable despite these differences. Creating a reusable QA test collection is fundamentally more difficult than creating a document retrieval test collection since the QA task has no equivalent to document identifiers.
Ellen M. Voorhees, Dawn M. Tice
SIGIR2
1999 A usability case study using TREC and ZPRISE
Laura L. Downey, Dawn M. Tice
Inf. Process. Manag.2