초록

Abstract

The objective of this research was to quantitatively examine the uses of first person pronouns in academic journal paper abstracts. An approximate total of 144,400 abstracts that comprising of four disciplines (chemistry, computer sciences, social sciences, and medicine) from nine countries (China, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, France, Spain, United Kingdom, and U.S.) were quantitatively examined. By exploring the use of first person pronoun in abstracts, this paper examined the current practices among academics in the world. The results indicate the norms of each author’s country and the norms of each discipline. Furthermore, the frequency-count result of this study contradicted viewpoints of academics who disapprove the use of personal person expressions in abstracts. An implication of this study is that there is a need for academics to acknowledge the uses of first person pronoun in the real world before forming personal opinions regarding the first person pronoun.

초록

본 논문에서는 문헌의 적합성수준을 적합성정도에 따라 4그룹(부적합한, 조금 적합한, 적합한, 매우 적합한)으로 나눈 후 서로 다른 심사자가 적합성 판정을 내린 4개의 적합성 판정세트(A, B, C, D)에서 “조금 적합한” 문헌을 부적합문헌으로 분류했을 때와 적합문헌으로 분류하였을 때에, 초록/표제 시스템과 전문검색시스템에서 적합성피드백으로 인한 검색효율성의 증진은 어느 쪽이 더 혜택을 받게 되는 지를 연구하였다. “조금 적합한” 문헌을 적합문헌으로 포함시켰을 때 초록/표제시스템이 전문검색시스템보다 모든 적합성판정세트에서 검색효율성의 증가율이 높았고, 반면에 전문검색시스템에서는 “조금 적합한” 문헌을 적합문헌그룹에서 제외시켰을 때 검색효율성의 증가율이 일관성 있게 높아지는 것을 발견하였다. 이는 전문검색시스템에서는 적합문헌으로 포함된 “조금 적합한” 문헌으로부터 얻어지는 적합성피드백 정보는 잡음의 역할을 하게 되어 검색효율성의 증진에 도움이 안 되고 있음을 암시하고 있다. 특히, 매우 동질적인 문헌을 색인 및 검색대상으로 하고 있는 전문검색시스템에서는 잡음에 의해 초래되는 낮은 정확률을 개선하는 정교한 검색기법에 대한 연구가 지속되어야만 한다.

Abstract

This study examined the relative retrieval effectiveness after relevance feedback between two systems (Title/Abstract and Full-text) using four different sets of relevance judgment. Four relevance levels (not relevant, marginally relevant, relevant, highly relevant) are also used, each of which is determined by referees giving a relevance score to documents. This study also investigated how much the average precision was improved after relevance feedback when “marginally relevant” documents are included in the relevant class with the Title/Abstract system, and with the Full-text retrieval system as well. It is found that the Title/Abstract system benefited from relevance feedback with the marginally relevant documents. In case of the Title/Abstract system, the higher percentage of improvement was consistently obtained when including the marginally relevant documents in the relevance class, however the result was vice versa in case of the Full-text retrieval system. It implied that the marginally relevant documents in the relevant class had caused noises in the Full-text retrieval system.