Guillaume Cabanac [email protected] March 28th, 2012 Musings at the Crossroads of Digital Libraries, Information Retrieval, and Scientometrics http://bit.ly/rguCabanac2012 Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM Guillaume.

Download Report

Transcript Guillaume Cabanac [email protected] March 28th, 2012 Musings at the Crossroads of Digital Libraries, Information Retrieval, and Scientometrics http://bit.ly/rguCabanac2012 Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM Guillaume.

Guillaume Cabanac
[email protected]
March 28th, 2012
Musings at the Crossroads of
Digital Libraries, Information Retrieval,
and Scientometrics
http://bit.ly/rguCabanac2012
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Outline of these Musings
Digital Libraries
 Collective annotations
 Social validation of discussion threads
 Organization-based document similarity
Information Retrieval
 The tie-breaking bias in IR evaluation
 Geographic IR
 Effectiveness of query operators
Scientometrics
 Recommendation based on topics and social clues
 Landscape of research in Information Systems
 The submission-date bias in peer-reviewed conferences
2
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Outline of these Musings
Digital Libraries
 Collective annotations
 Social validation of discussion threads
 Organization-based document similarity
Information Retrieval
 The tie-breaking bias in IR evaluation
 Geographic IR
 Effectiveness of query operators
Scientometrics
 Recommendation based on topics and social clues
 Landscape of research in Information Systems
 The submission-date bias in peer-reviewed conferences
3
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Digital Libraries
 Collective annotations
 Social validation of discussion threads
 Organization-based document similarity
SCIM
Question DL-1
How to transpose paper-based
annotations into digital documents?
Guillaume Cabanac, Max Chevalier, Claude Chrisment, Christine Julien. “Collective annotation: Perspectives for
information retrieval improvement.” RIAO’07 : Proceedings of the 8th conference on Information Retrieval and its
Applications, pages 529–548. CID, may 2007.
4
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
From Individual Paper-based Annotation …
1541
1630
Annotated bible
(Lortsch, 1910)

1790
1830
Fermat’s last
theorem
Annotations from
Blake, Keats…
(Kleiner, 2000)
(Jackson, 2001)
1881
1998
Les Misérables
US students
Victor Hugo
(Marshall, 1998)
Characteristics of paper annotation




Secular activity: older than 4 centuries
Numerous applicative contexts: theology, science, literature …
Personal use:
“active reading” (Adler & van Doren, 1972)
Collective use: review process, opinion exchange …
5
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
… to Collective Digital Annotations
hardcopy
Hard to share  ‘lost’
author
87%
(Ovsiannikov et al., 1999)
Web servers
reader
13%
> 20 annotation systems
(Cabanac et al., 2005)
ComMentor … iMarkup …
Annotation
server
1993
a discussion thread
Yawas …
Amaya …
2005
6
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Digital Document Annotation: Examples

W3C Annotea / Amaya
(Kahan et al., 2002)
a reader’s comment
discussion
thread

Arakne, featuring “fluid annotations” (Bouvin et al., 2002)
7
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Collective Annotations

Reviewed 64 systems designed during 1989–2008

Collective Annotation

Objective data



Subjective information




Owner, creation date
Anchoring point within the document. Granularity: all doc, words…
Comments, various marks: stars, underlined text…
Annotation types: support/refutation, question…
Visibility: public, private, group…
Purpose-oriented annotation categories
Annotation remark
Personal Annotation Space
Annotation reminder
Annotation argumentation
8
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Digital Libraries
 Collective annotations
 Social validation of discussion threads
 Organization-based document similarity
SCIM
Question DL-2
How to measure the social validity of
a statement according to the
argumentative discussion it sparked off?
Guillaume Cabanac, Max Chevalier, Claude Chrisment, Christine Julien. “Social validation of collective
annotations : Definition and experiment.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 61(2):271–287, feb. 2010, Wiley. DOI:10.1002/asi.21255
9
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Social Validation of Argumentative Debates

Scalability issue 

Which annotations
should I read?

Social validation = degree of consensus of the group
Social Validation
10
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Social Validation of Argumentative Debates

Informing readers about how validated each annotation is
Before
After
Annotation magma
Filtered display
11
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Social Validation Algorithms

Overview
A
A
B
B
case 3
case 4
case 2
case 1
validity
–1
socially refuted

0
socially neutral
1
socially confirmed
Two proposed algorithms


Empirical Recursive Scoring Algorithm (Cabanac et al., 2005)
Bipolar Argumentation Framework Extension

based on Artificial Intelligence research works
(Cayrol & Lagasquie-Schiex, 2005)
12
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Social Validation Algorithm

Example

Computing the social validity of a debated annotation
13
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Validation with a User-study

Aim: social validation vs human perception of consensus

Design

Corpus: 13 discussion threads
= 222 annotations + answers

Task of a participant



Label opinion type
Infer overall opinion
Volunteer subjects
119
53
14
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Experimenting the Social Validation of Debates
Q1 Do people agree when labeling opinions?

Kappa coefficient
(Fleiss, 1971; Fleiss et al., 2003)
Inter-rater agreement among n > 2 raters

Weak agreement, with variability  subjective task
agreement
Value of Kappa

Fair to good
Poor
Debate Id
15
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Experimenting the Social Validation of Debates
Q2 How well SV approximates HP?


HP = Human Perception of consensus
SV = Social Validation algorithm
1. Test whether PH and VS are different (p < 0.05)
 Student’s paired t-test: (p = 0,20) > (a = 0,05)
Density y = p(HP – SV)
Density

example: HP = SV for 24 % of all cases
HP – SV
2. Correlate HP et SV
 Pearson’s coefficient of correlation r
r(HP, SV) = 0.48 shows a weak correlation
16
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Digital Libraries
 Collective annotations
 Social validation of discussion threads
 Organization-based document similarity
SCIM
Question DL-3
How to harness a quiescent capital
present in any community:
its documents?
Guillaume Cabanac, Max Chevalier, Claude Chrisment, Christine Julien. “Organization of digital resources as an
original facet for exploring the quiescent information capital of a community.” International Journal on Digital
Libraries, 11(4):239–261, dec. 2010, Springer. DOI:10.1007/s00799-011-0076-6
17
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Documents as a Quiescent Wealth



Personal Documents

Filtered, validated, organized information…

… relevant to activities in the organization
Paradox: profitable, but under-exploited

Reason 1 –  folders and files are private

Reason 2 –  manual sharing

Reason 3 –  automated sharing
Consequences


People resort to resources available outside of the community
Weak ROI  why would we have to look outside when it’s already there?
18
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
How to Benefit from Documents in a Community?

Mapping the documents of the community


SOM [Kohonen, 2001]
Umap [Triviumsoft]
TreeMap [Fekete & Plaisant, 2001]…
Limitations
 Find the documents with same topics as D
 Find documents that colleagues use with D
 concept of usage: grouping documents ⇆ keeping stuff in common
19
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
How to Benefit from Documents in a Community?

Organization-based similarities

inter-folder

inter-document

inter-user
20
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
How to Help People to Discover/Find/Use Documents?

Purpose: Offering a global view of

… people and their documents




community
Requirement: non-intrusiveness and confidentiality
Operational needs

Find documents




Based on document contents
Based on document usage/organization
With related materials
With complementary materials
Seeking people ⇆ seeking documents
Managerial needs


Visualize the global/individual activity
Work position  required documents
21
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Proposed System: Static Aspect
4 views = {documents, people}  {group, unit}
1. Group of documents
Main topics
 Usage groups

2. A single document
Who to liaise with?
 What to read?

3. Group of people
Community of interest
 Community of use

4. A single people
Interests
 Similar users (potential help)

22
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Outline of these Musings
Digital Libraries
 Collective annotations
 Social validation of discussion threads
 Organization-based document similarity
Information Retrieval
 The tie-breaking bias in IR evaluation
 Geographic IR
 Effectiveness of query operators
Scientometrics
 Recommendation based on topics and social clues
 Landscape of research in Information Systems
 The submission-date bias in peer-reviewed conferences
23
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Information Retrieval
 The tie-breaking bias in IR evaluation
 Geographic IR
 Effectiveness of query operators
SCIM
Question IR-1
Is document tie-breaking
affecting the evaluation of
Information Retrieval systems?
Guillaume Cabanac, Gilles Hubert, Mohand Boughanem, Claude Chrisment. “Tie-breaking Bias : Effect of an
Uncontrolled Parameter on Information Retrieval Evaluation.” M. Agosti, N. Ferro, C. Peters, M. de Rijke, and A. F.
Smeaton (Eds.) CLEF’10 : Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Multilingual and Multimodal Information Access
Evaluation, volume 6360 de LNCS, pages 112–123. Springer, sep. 2010. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-15998-5_13
24
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Measuring the Effectiveness of IR systems

User-centered vs. System-focused

Evaluation campaigns






1958
1992
1999
2001
…
[Spärck Jones & Willett, 1997]
Cranfield, UK
TREC (Text Retrieval Conference), USA
NTCIR (NII Test Collection for IR Systems), Japan
CLEF (Cross-Language Evaluation Forum), Europe
“Cranfield” methodology
Task
 Test collection
 Corpus
 Topics
 Qrels
 Measures : MAP, P@X ...
using trec_eval

[Voorhees, 2007]
25
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Runs are Reordered Prior to Their Evaluation
Qrels = qid, iter, docno, rel
Run = qid, iter, docno, rank, sim, run_id
( , 0.8), ( , 0.8), ( , 0.5)
Reordering by trec_eval
qid asc, sim desc, docno desc
( , 0.8), ( , 0.8), ( , 0.5)
Effectiveness measure = f (intrinsic_quality,
MAP, P@X, MRR…
)
26
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Consequences of Run Reordering

Measures of effectiveness for an IRS s




RR(s,t)
P(s,t,d)
AP(s,t)
MAP(s)
1/rank of the 1st relevant document, for topic t
precision at document d, for topic t
average precision for topic t
mean average precision

Sensitive to
document
rank
 Tie-breaking bias
Ellen
Chris

Is the Wall Street Journal collection more relevant than Associated Press?
 Problem 1
 Problem 2
comparing 2 systems
comparing 2 topics
AP(s1, t) vs. AP(s2, t)
AP(s, t1) vs. AP(s, t2)
27
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
What we Learnt: Beware of Tie-breaking for AP

Poor effect on MAP, larger effect on AP

Measure bounds APRealistic  APConventionnal  APOptimistic
padre1, adhoc’94

Failure analysis for the ranking process

Error bar = element of chance  potential for improvement
28
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Information Retrieval
 The tie-breaking bias in IR evaluation
 Geographic IR
 Effectiveness of query operators
SCIM
Question IR-2
How to retrieve documents
matching keywords and
spatiotemporal constraints?
Damien Palacio, Guillaume Cabanac, Christian Sallaberry, Gilles Hubert. “On the evaluation of geographic
information retrieval systems: Evaluation framework and case study.” International Journal on Digital Libraries,
11(2):91–109, june 2010, Springer. DOI:10.1007/s00799-011-0070-z
29
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Geographic Information Retrieval

Query = “Road trip around Aberdeen summer 1982”

Search engines



Topic
term  {road, trip, Aberdeen, summer}
Geographic
spatial  {AberdeenCity, AberdeenCounty…}
temporal  [21-JUN-1982 .. 22-SEP-1982]
term  {road, trip, Aberdeen, summer}
 1/6 queries = geographic queries



Excite (Sanderson et al., 2004)
AOL (Gan et al., 2008)
Yahoo! (Jones et al., 2008)
 Current issue worth studying
30
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
The Internals of a Geographic IR System

3 dimensions to process


Topical, spatial, temporal
1 index per dimension
Topic
 Spatial
 Temporal


bag of words, stemming, weighting, comparing with VSM…
spatial entity detection, spatial relation resolution…
temporal entity detection…
Query processing with sequential filtering

e.g., priority to theme, then filtering according to other dimensions

Issue: effectiveness of GIRSs vs state-of-the-art IRSs?

Hypothesis: GIRSs better than state-of-the-art IRSs
31
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Case Study: the PIV GIR System

Indexing: one index per dimension


Topical = Terrier IRS
Spatial = tiling
Temporal = tiling
Retrieval
Identification of the 3 dimensions in the query
 Routing towards each index
 Combination of results with CombMNZ [Fox & Shaw, 1993; Lee 1997]

32
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Case Study: the PIV GIR System

Principle of CombMNZ and Borda Count
33
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Case Study: the PIV GIR System

Gain in effectiveness
34
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Information Retrieval
 The tie-breaking bias in IR evaluation
 Geographic IR
 Effectiveness of query operators
SCIM
Question IR-3
Do operators in search queries improve
the effectiveness of search results?
Gilles Hubert, Guillaume Cabanac, Christian Sallaberry, Damien Palacio. “Query Operators Shown Beneficial for
Improving Search Results.” S. Gradmann, F. Borri, C. Meghini, H. Schuldt (Eds.) TPDL’11 : Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, volume 6966 de LNCS, pages 118–129.
Springer, sep. 2011. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-24469-8_14.
35
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Search Engines Offer Query Operators
Information need
“I’m looking for research projects funded in the DL domain”
Regular query

Query with operators
Various Operators

Quotation marks, Must appear (+), boosting operator (^),
Boolean operators, proximity operators…
36
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Our Research Questions
Q = Do query operators lead to improved search results?
Q1 = Maximum gain in
effectiveness when enriching
a query with operators?
Q2 = Do users succeed in
formulating better queries
involving operators?
37
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Our Methodology in a Nutshell
V3
V2
V1: Query variant with operators
Regular query

. VN
V4 . .







38
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Effectiveness of Query Operators

TREC-7 per Topic Analysis: Boxplots

‘+’ and ‘^’
39
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Effectiveness of Query Operators
Per Topic Analysis: Box plot
0.4
AP (Average Precision)

Query variant highest AP
0.3
AP of TREC’s regular query
0.2
0.1
Query variant lowest AP
32
Topics
40
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Effectiveness of Query Operators

TREC-7 Per Topic Analysis

‘+’ and ‘^’
MAP  = 0.1554
MAP ┬ = 0.2099
+35.1%
41
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Outline of these Musings
Digital Libraries
 Collective annotations
 Social validation of discussion threads
 Organization-based document similarity
Information Retrieval
 The tie-breaking bias in IR evaluation
 Geographic IR
 Effectiveness of query operators
Scientometrics
 Recommendation based on topics and social clues
 Landscape of research in Information Systems
 The submission-date bias in peer-reviewed conferences
42
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Scientometrics
 Recommendation based on topics and social clues
 Landscape of research in Information Systems
 The submission-date bias in peer-reviewed conferences
SCIM
Question SCIM-1
How to recommend researchers
according to their research topics
and social clues?
Guillaume Cabanac. “Accuracy of inter-researcher similarity measures based on topical and social clues.”
Scientometrics, 87(3):597–620, june 2011, Springer. DOI:10.1007/s11192-011-0358-1
43
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Recommendation of Literature

Principle: mining the preferences of researchers
 those who liked this paper also liked…
 Snowball effect / fad
 Innovation?
 Relevance of theme?





????
Cognitive filtering


(McNee et al., 2006)
Collaborative filtering


Guillaume Cabanac
Principle: mining the contents of articles
 profile of resources (researcher, articles)
 citation graph
Hybrid approach
44
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Foundations: Similarity Measures Under Study

Model



Coauthors
Venues
graph authors  auteurs
graph authors  conferences / journals
Social similarities
Inverse degree of separation
 Strength of the tie
 Shared conferences


length of the shortest path
number of shortest paths
number of shared conference editions
Thematic similarity

Cosine on Vector Space Model di = (wi1, … , win)
built on titles (doc / researcher)
45
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Computing Similarities with Social Clues

Task of literature review


Requirement topical relevance
Preference social proximity (meetings, project…)
 re-rank topical results with social clues

Combination with CombMNZ (Fox & Shaw, 1993)
Degree of separation
Strength of ties
Shared conferences

CombMNZ
Social list
Topical list

CombMNZ
TS list
Final result: list of recommended researchers
46
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Evaluation Design

Comparison of recommendations and researchers’ perception



Q1 : Effectiveness of topical (only) recommendations?
Q2 : Gain due to integrating social clues?
IR experiments: Cranfield paradigm (TREC…)

Does the search engine retrieve relevant documents?
Doc relevant?
corpus
relevance judgments
{0, 1} binary
[0, N] gradual
search engine x
assessor
topic
trec_eval
Effectiveness measures
Mean Average Precision
Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain
topic
S1
S2
1
0.5687
0.6521
…
…
…
50
0.7124
0.7512
avg
0.6421
0.7215
improvement +12.3 %
significativity p < 0.05 (paired t-test)
47
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Evaluating Recommendations

Adaptation of the Cranfield paradigm (TREC…)

corpus
Is the search engine rec. sys. Retrieving relevant documents researchers?
doc relevant ?
recommender system
search engine x
Top 25
assessor
researcher
topic
name of a
researcher
« With whom would you like to chat for
improving your research? »
trec_eval
Effectiveness measures
Mean Average Precision
Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain
topical
#subjects
relevance judgments
{0, 1} binary
[0, N] gradual
topical +
social
topic
S1
S2
1
0.5687
0.6521
…
…
…
50
0.7124
0.7512
avg
0.6421
0.7215
improvement +12.3 %
significativity p < 0.05 (paired t-test)
48
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Experiment

Features



Data
Subjects
dblp.xml (713 MB = 1.3M publications for 811,787 researchers)
90 researchers-contacts
contacted by mail
74 researchers began to fill the questionnaire. 71 completed it
Interface for assessing recommendations



49
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Experiments: Profile of the Participants
Experience of the 71 subjects
Number of participants

Mdn = 13 years
74
Seniority
Productivity of the 71 subjects
Mdn = 15 publications
Number of participants

Number of publications
50
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Empirical Validation of our Hypothesis

Strong baseline  effective approach based on VSM
Topical
Thématique
Topical + social
Thématique
+ Social
1
+8,49 %
+10,39 %
+7,03 %
+6,50 %
+10,22 %
global
< 15 publis
>= 15 publis
< 13 ans
years
>= 13
ans
years
NDCG
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
productivity

+8.49 % =
experience
significant improvement (p < 0.05 ; n = 70)
of topical recommendations by social clues
51
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Scientometrics
 Recommendation based on topics and social clues
 Landscape of research in Information Systems
 The submission-date bias in peer-reviewed conferences
SCIM
Question SCIM-2
What is the landscape of research in
Information Systems from the
perspective of gatekeepers?
Guillaume Cabanac. “Shaping the landscape of research in Information Systems from the perspective of editorial
boards : A scientometric study of 77 leading journals.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 63, to appear in 2012, Wiley. DOI:10.1002/asi.22609
52
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Landscape of Research in Information Systems

The gatekeepers of science
53
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Landscape of Research in Information Systems

The 77 core peer-reviewed IS journals in the WoS
54
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Landscape of Research in Information Systems

Exploratory data analysis
55
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Landscape of Research in Information Systems

Exploratory data analysis
56
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Landscape of Research in Information Systems

Topical map of the IS field
57
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Landscape of Research in Information Systems

Most influential
gatekeepers
58
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Landscape of Research in Information Systems

Number of gatekeepers per country
59
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Landscape of Research in Information Systems

Geographic and gender diversity
60
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
DL
IR
Guillaume Cabanac
Scientometrics
 Recommendation based on topics and social clues
 Landscape of research in Information Systems
 The submission-date bias in peer-reviewed conferences
SCIM
Question SCIM-3
What if submission date influenced the
acceptance of conference papers?
Guillaume Cabanac. “What if submission date influenced the acceptance of conference papers?” Submitted to
the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Wiley.
61
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Conferences Affected by a Submission-Date bias?

Peer-review
62
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
The Submission-Date bias

Dataset from the ConfMaster conference management system
63
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
The Submission-Date bias

Influence of submission date on bids
64
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
The Submission-Date bias

Influence of submission date on average marks
65
Musings at the Crossroads of DL, IR, and SCIM
Guillaume Cabanac
Conclusion
Digital Libraries
 Collective annotations
 Social validation of discussion threads
 Organization-based document similarity
Information Retrieval
 The tie-breaking bias in IR evaluation
 Geographic IR
 Effectiveness of query operators
Scientometrics
 Recommendation based on topics and social clues
 Landscape of research in Information Systems
 The submission-date bias in peer-reviewed conferences
66
Thank you
http://www.irit.fr/~Guillaume.Cabanac
Twitter: @tafanor