MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135333592 · doi:10.1145/3406522.3446031

Rethinking Interest in Studies of Interactive Information Retrieval

2021· article· en· W3135333592 on OpenAlexafffund
Luanne Sinnamon, Limor Tamim, Samuel Dodson, Heather L. O'Brien

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Educational Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsOperationalizationComputer scienceConstruct (python library)Perspective (graphical)Consistency (knowledge bases)Field (mathematics)Variable (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest characterizes a cognitive-emotional relationship between people and information and is a key construct in human information interaction. As a motivational variable, interest has been widely studied in psychology and education, but has received less consistent and theory-driven attention in the field of interactive information retrieval (IIR). In this perspective paper we examine the role of interest and review how it has been studied and operationalized in IIR research. We draw upon a survey of 58 research studies that have manipulated, controlled or measured searcher interest in some way. The intent of the paper is to raise the profile of interest as a user-centred variable in IIR and to advocate for more conceptual and methodological consistency in future studies to better evaluate the impact of interest in information search.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.024
Scholarly communication0.0120.021
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.335
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychological and Educational Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207