請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67358
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 唐牧群(Muh-Chyun Tang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ying-Fong Jheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鄭英鳳 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T01:29:07Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2017-08-11 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2017-08-11 | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2017-08-04 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、 中文部分
江玉婷、陳光華(1999)。TREC現況及其對資訊檢索研究之影響。圖書與資訊學刊(29),頁 36-59。 陳光華、江玉婷(2000)。中文資訊檢索測試集之設計與製作。資訊傳播與圖書館學6(3),頁 61-80。 朱經明(2007)。多因子變異數分析。載於 教育及心理統計學。(頁234)。台北: 五南圖書出版公司。 洪承理(2009)。使用者查詢擴展行為研究:以MeSH為詞彙來源的建議詞彙工具為例(碩士論文)。取自:http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/71323729282794559136 范豪英(1995)。醫學標題表。【圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典】。取自: http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679619/ 贾洪强, 肖波, & 刘唐(2011)。基于 session 数据的信息检索优化方法。 二、 西文部分 Agoritsas, T., Merglen, A., Courvoisier, D. S., Combescure, C., Garin, N., Perrier, A., & Perneger, T. V. (2012). Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(3), 389-403. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2021 Allen, B. (1991). Topic knowledge and online cataloge search formulation. Library Quarterly, 61(2), 188-213. Belkin, N. J., & Croft, W. B. (1992). Information filtering and information retrieval: two sides of the same coin? Commun. ACM, 35(12), 29-38. doi: 10.1145/138859.138861 Borlund, P. (2003). The IIR evaluation model: a framework for evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Information research, 8(3). Brookes, B. C. (1980). The foundations of information science. Part I philosophical aspects. Journal of Information Science, 2(3-4), 125-133. doi: 10.1177/016555158000200302 Case, D. O. (2005). Principle of Least Effort. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 289-292). Medford, N.J.: Published for the American Society for Information Science and Technology by Information Today. Chang, A. A., Heskett, K. M., & Davidson, T. M. (2006). Searching the Literature Using Medical Subject Headings versus Text Word with PubMed. The Laryngoscope, 116(2), 336-340. doi: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000195371.72887.a2 Chu, H. (2011). Factors affecting relevance judgment: a report from TREC Legal track. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 264-278. doi: 10.1108/00220411111109467 Cleverdon, C. (1967, April 27th). The Cranfield tests on index language devices. Paper presented at the Aslib proceedings, London. Coletti, M. H., & Bleich, H. L. (2001). Medical Subject Headings Used to Search the Biomedical Literature (Vol. 8). Delozier, E. P., & Lingle, V. A. (1992). MEDLINE and MeSH. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 11(3), 29-46. doi: 10.1300/J115V11N03_03 Dickersin, K., Scherer, R., & Lefebvre, C. (1994). Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Bmj, 309(6964), 1286-1291. Eisinga, A., Siegfried, N., & Clarke, M. (2007). The sensitivity and precision of search terms in Phases I, II and III of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying reports of randomized trials in MEDLINE in a specific area of health care - HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment interventions. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(2), 103-109. Gault, L. V., Shultz, M., & Davies, K. J. (2002). Variations in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) mapping: from the natural language of patron terms to the controlled vocabulary of mapped lists. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(2), 173-180. Gehanno, J.-F., Rollin, L., Le Jean, T., Louvel, A., Darmoni, S., & Shaw, W. (2009). Precision and Recall of Search Strategies for Identifying Studies on Return-To-Work in Medline. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(3), 223-230. doi: 10.1007/s10926-009-9177-0 Glanville, J. M., Lefebvre, C., Miles, J. N. V., & Camosso-Stefinovic, J. (2006). How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association ( JMLA ), 94(2). Golder, S., McIntosh, H. M., Duffy, S., & Glanville, J. (2006). Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Info Libr J, 23(1), 3-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00634.x Harman, D. (1992a). Relevance feedback and other query modification techniques. In W. B. Frakes & R. Baeza-Yates (Eds.), Information Retrieval : data structures & algorithms (pp. 241-263). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Harman, D. (1992b). Relevance feedback revisited. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Copenhagen, Denmark. Harter, S. P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1986-1998), 43(9), 602. Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N. L., Walter, S. D., & Werre, S. R. (2005). Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. 330(7501), 1179. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8F Haynes, R. B., Wilczynski, N., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J., & Sinclair, J. C. (1994). Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 1(6), 447-458. Heit, E. (1997). Knowledge and concept learning. In K. Lamberts & D. Shanks (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 7-41). Hove: Psychology Press. Hembrooke, H. A., Granka, L. A., Gay, G. K., & Liddy, E. D. (2005). The effects of expertise and feedback on search term selection and subsequent learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(8), 861-871. doi: 10.1002/asi.20180 Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2011, Mar). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_6/6_4_11_1_the_cochrane_highly_sensitive_search_strategies_for.htm Huberman, B. A., Pirolli, P. L. T., Pitkow, J. E., & Lukose, R. M. (1998). Strong Regularities in World Wide Web Surfing. Science, 280(5360), 95-97. doi: 10.2307/2895231 Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2000). IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Athens, Greece. Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2002). Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 20(4), 422-446. doi: 10.1145/582415.582418 Jenuwine, E. S., & Floyd, J. A. (2004). Comparison of Medical Subject Headings and text-word searches in MEDLINE to retrieve studies on sleep in healthy individuals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 349-353. Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before You Make That Big Decision. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50-60. Katchamart, W., Faulkner, A., Feldman, B., Tomlinson, G., & Bombardier, C. (2011). PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(7), 805-807. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.06.004 Kekäläinen, J., & Järvelin, K. (2002). Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1120-1129. doi: 10.1002/asi.10137 Kelly, D., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). A systematic review of interactive information retrieval evaluation studies, 1967-2006. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 745-770. doi: 10.1002/asi.22799 Koenemann, J., & Belkin, N. J. (1996). A case for interaction: a study of interactive information retrieval behavior and effectiveness. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/240000/238487/p205-koenemann.pdf?ip=140.112.71.30&id=238487&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=AF37130DAFA4998B%2EEE7BEA59C98A8EF6%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=720709121&CFTOKEN=51930435&__acm__=1444572249_c6916b4757ab996c6397127a95f26b74 Lu, Z., Wilbur, W. J., McEntyre, J. R., Iskhakov, A., & Szilagyi, L. (2009). Finding Query Suggestions for PubMed. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2009, 396-400. Monchaux, S., Amadieu, F., Chevalier, A., & Mariné, C. (2015). Query strategies during information searching: Effects of prior domain knowledge and complexity of the information problems to be solved. Information Processing & Management, 51(5), 557-569. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.05.004 National Library of Medicine. (2014). MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): how are they different? Retrieved April 11th, 2014, from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/dif_med_pub.html National Library of Medicine. (2015, April 18th). PubMed Help. Retrieved April 18th, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3827/#pubmedhelp.Is_there_anything_special_for Pertti, V., & Nanna, H. (2000). Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. Journal of Documentation, 56(5), 540-562. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000007127 Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: prior knowledge and new experience. In J. H. F. L. D. Dierking (Ed.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 37-51). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Saracevic, T., Kantor, P., Chamis, A. Y., & Trivison, D. (1997). A Study of Information Seeking and Retrieving. In K. S. Jones & P. Willett (Eds.), Readings in information retrieval (pp. 175-190). San Francisco, Calif.: Morgan Kaufman. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M. B., & Nilan, M. S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: toward a dynamic, situational definition∗. Information Processing & Management, 26(6), 755-776. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(90)90050-C Sladek, R., Tieman, J., Fazekas, B. S., Abernethy, A. P., & Currow, D. C. (2006). Development of a subject search filter to find information relevant to palliative care in the general medical literature. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(4), 394-401. Tang, M.-C., Liu, Y.-H., & Wu, W.-C. (2013). A study of the influence of task familiarity on user behaviors and performance with a MeSH term suggestion interface for PubMed bibliographic search. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 82(9), 832-843. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.04.005 Tanon, A. A., Champagne, F., Contandriopoulos, A. P., Pomey, M. P., Vadeboncoeur, A., & Nguyen, H. (2010). Patient safety and systematic reviews: finding papers indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Qual Saf Health Care, 19(5), 452-461. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2008.031401 Taylor, A. (2012). User relevance criteria choices and the information search process. Information Processing & Management, 48(1), 136-153. Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & research libraries, 29(3), 178-194. Vakkari, P. (2000). Cognition and changes of search terms and tactics during task performance: a longitudinal case study. Paper presented at the Content-Based Multimedia Information Access - Volume 1, Paris, France. Vakkari, P., Pennanen, M., & Serola, S. (2003). Changes of search terms and tactics while writing a research proposal: A longitudinal case study. Information Processing & Management, 39(3), 445-463. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(02)00031-6 Vincent, S., Greenley, S., & Beaven, O. (2003). Clinical Evidence diagnosis: Developing a sensitive search strategy to retrieve diagnostic studies on deep vein thrombosis: a pragmatic approach. Health Info Libr J, 20(3), 150-159. White, R. W., Dumais, S. T., & Teevan, J. (2009). Characterizing the influence of domain expertise on web search behavior. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Barcelona, Spain. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1500000/1498819/p132-white.pdf?ip=140.112.77.58&id=1498819&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=AF37130DAFA4998B%2EEE7BEA59C98A8EF6%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=756611731&CFTOKEN=16178293&__acm__=1456495984_e40b7293859d36c3e03bcb1ad5e279db Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2003). Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound causation studies in MEDLINE. AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 719-723. Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2004). Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. BMC Med, 2, 23. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-2-23 Wildemuth, B. M., de Bliek, R., Friedman, C. P., & File, D. D. (1995). Medical students' personal knowledge, searching proficiency, and database use in problem solving. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(8), 590-607. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199509)46:8<590::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-# Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9(8), 457-471. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-0271(73)90096-X Wilson, P. (1995). Unused relevant information in research and development. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(1), 45. Wong, S. S. L., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2006). Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(4), 451-455. Zhang, L., Ajiferuke, I., & Sampson, M. (2006). Optimizing search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE. BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, 23. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-23 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67358 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 關鍵詞搜尋又稱為快速搜尋,在PubMed當中很常被使用的搜尋方式。醫學主題詞表(Medical Subject Heading,簡稱MeSH)是另一種搜尋選擇。使用者在檢索過程中,對於快速搜尋與MeSH輔助搜尋之檢索結果好壞,通常不會直接回饋任何意見給PubMed,因此評估兩種搜尋方式之檢索表現很重要。再者,過去研究很少著重於使用者觀點。而先前研究亦指出主題熟悉度在檢索過程中有其重要性,因此,本研究利用真實使用者與真實檢索主題,比較PubMed當中快速搜尋與MeSH輔助搜尋,同時探討主題熟悉度在過程中之影響。
研究方法為實驗法,研究對象為生物醫學與生命科學相關系所研究生,共招募32位受測者,並請受測者事先前準備一個熟悉與一個不熟悉的主題。實驗採用拉丁方格設計與受試者內設計,控制主題熟悉度(熟悉與不熟悉)與兩種搜尋方式(快速搜尋與MeSH輔助搜尋),將受測者隨機分至4個組別。實驗一開始蒐集受測者背景資料,接著請受測者依序填寫實驗前問卷、搜尋任務問卷及實驗後問卷。 研究結果顯示:(一)快速搜尋與MeSH輔助搜尋在平均精確率、累計增益值(Cumulative Gain,簡稱CG)、折扣增益值(Discounted Cumulative Gain,簡稱DCG)及正規化折扣增益值(Normalized DCG,簡稱NDCG)的表現沒有明顯差異。受測者對快速搜尋與MeSH輔助搜尋的滿意度亦無顯著差異。但受測者使用MeSH輔助搜尋過程受到比較多挫折。(二)快速搜尋與MeSH輔助搜尋對於最初與最終查詢語句相似度沒有顯著影響。(三)主題熟悉度對於最初與最終查詢語句適用性沒有顯著影響。(四)主題熟悉度對於檢索結果相關程度有顯著影響,越不熟悉的主題越可以找到越相關的資料,反之越熟悉的主題找到的資料越不相關。建議未來研究可探討如何幫助使用者檢索不熟悉的主題。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Keyword search, also called quick search, is a common way used to retrieve relevant data in PubMed. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) is another option in PubMed. Since users usually don’t provide any feedback to PubMed, it might be very difficult to know whether the performance of quick search or advanced search (MeSH) is good enough. Therefore, it’s important to evaluate the performance of both quick search and advanced search. In the past, researchers seem to rarely focus on the viewpoint of users. Also, topic familiarity plays an important role during the process of information retrieval. As a result, we would like to compare the PubMed quick search and advanced search with real users and real search requests as well as exploring the impact of familiarity.
A total of 32 participants in the bio-medical areas will be recruited, who, prior to the experiment, would be asked to prepared two search requests of their own, one familiar, the other, unfamiliar. A 2x2 Latin square factorial design was adopted where topic familiarity (high vs. low) and search interfaces (Quick vs. Advanced search) served as two within-subject factors. The background information is collected, following by the pre-search questionnaire, search task, post-search questionnaire, and post-experimental questionnaire to collect all the data of search performance and search behavior. The result shows that there are no obvious differences between the performance of quick search and advanced search in terms of mean average precision, cumulative gain, discounted cumulative gain (DCG) and normalized DCG. There are no significant differences between participants’ satisfaction toward quick search and advanced search either. However, participants feel more frustrated when using advanced search. Quick search and advanced search have no significant impact on the similarity of initial and final query. Topic familiarity has no significant impact on goodness of initial and final query. However, topic familiarity was found to have a significant impact on users’ relevance judgment. Search results were found to be significantly more relevant, as judged by the users, for unfamiliar topics than familiar ones. Future research can be done to investigate how to assist users who are not familiar with their topics. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T01:29:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R01126015-1.pdf: 1382786 bytes, checksum: f87ba1100f79fb837b52dc55500e441f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要……………………………………………………………………………………i
目次…………………………………………………………………………………iii 表次……………………………………………………………………………………v 圖次……………………………………………………………………………………vi 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………………1 第一節 研究動機…………………………………………………………………1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題……………………………………………………3 第三節 研究範圍與限制…………………………………………………………4 第四節 名詞解釋…………………………………………………………………5 第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………………………………7 第一節 關鍵詞或MeSH主題詞搜尋之評估…………………………7 第二節 針對特定類型搜尋策略之最佳化……………………………9 第三節 主題熟悉度對於搜尋行為之影響…………………………12 第四節 資訊檢索評估………………………………………………14 第五節 小結…………………………………………………………17 第三章 研究設計與實施…………………………………………………………22 第一節 研究方法與設計……………………………………………22 第二節 研究對象與研究工具………………………………………30 第三節 研究實施……………………………………………………32 第四節 資料處理與分析………………….………………………34 第四章 研究結果…………………………………………………………………36 第一節 使用者基本資料……………………………………………36 第二節 快速搜尋與MeSH輔助搜尋之檢索表現比較………………38 第三節 搜尋方式與主題熟悉度對查詢語句使用行為之影響……49 第四節 主題熟悉度對檢索結果之影響……………………………52 第五章 結論與建議 …………………………………………………55 參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………… 59 附錄………………………………………………………………………………… 64 附錄一 實驗前問卷…………………………………………………64 附錄二 搜尋任務問卷………………………………………………66 附錄三 實驗後問卷…………………………………………………69 附錄四 實驗參與同意書……………………………………………70 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | PubMed快速搜尋與MeSH輔助搜尋之比較研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A comparison between PubMed quick search and advanced search with real users and real search requests | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳光華(Kuang-Hua Chen),蔡天怡(Tien-I Tsai) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 資訊檢索系統,醫學主題詞表,主題熟悉度,自動比對,使用者行為, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | PubMed,MeSH,medical subject heading,familiarity,automatic term mapping,user behavior, | en |
dc.relation.page | 70 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201702252 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2017-08-07 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 圖書資訊學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-106-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.35 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。