Refining instructional text generation after evaluation

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 1-36

  De Rosis, Fiorella ^a   Grasso, Floriana ^b   Berry, Dianne C ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Prescription explanations; Sentence planning; Text planning

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; TEXT PROCESSING;

SENTENCE PLANNING; TEXT PLANNING;

MEDICAL COMPUTING;

DRUG INFORMATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0032790473     PISSN: 09333657     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0933-3657(99)00014-7     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Andre E., Rist T. Generating Coherent Presentations Employing Textual and Visual Material. Artif. Intell. Rev. 9:1995;147-165.
2. Berry D., Gillie T., Banbury S. What Do Patients Want to Know: an Empirical Approach to Explanation Generation and Validation. Expert Syst. Appl. 8(4):1995;419-428.
3. Berry D, Gillie T, de Rosis F. Evaluating Explanations about Drug Prescriptions. Psychol. Health (in press).
4. Berry D., Michas I., Forster M., Gillie T. What Do Patients Want To Know About Their Medicines and What Do Doctors Want To Tell Them?: A Comparative Study. Psychol. Health. 12:1997;467-480.
5. Buchanan B., Moore J., Forsythe D., Carenini G., Ohlsson S., Banks G. An Intelligent Interactive System for Delivering Individualized Information to Patients. Artif. Intell. Med. 7(2):1995;117-154.
6. Carberry S, Harvey T. Generating Coherent Messages in Real-time Decision Support: Exploiting Discourse Theory for Discourse Practice. In: Proc. 19th Annu. Conf. Cognitive Science Society, 1997.
7. Cawsey A. Explanation and Interaction: the Computer Generation of Explanatory Dialogues. 1992;MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.).
8. Cawsey A, Binsted K, Jones R. Personalised Explanations for Patient Education. In: Proc. 5th Eur. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1995. p. 59-74.
9. Cawsey A., Webber B., Jones R. Natural Language Generation in Health Care. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 4(6):1997.
10. Cheepen C, Monaghan J. Naturalness in Automated Dialogues-less is more. In: Levy and Wilks [30], p. 83-89.
11. Dale R, Mellish C, Zock M, editors. Current Research in Natural Language Generation. Academic Press, 1990.
12. Dalianis H. Concise Natural Language Generation from Formal Specifications. PhD thesis. Royal Institute of Technology/Stockholm University, Department of Computer and System Science, 1996.
13. Dalianis H, Hovy E. On Lexical Aggregation and Ordering. In: Proc. 8th Int. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1996. p. 29-32 (Poster session).
14. De Carolis B., de Rosis F., Grasso F., Rossiello A., Berry D., Gillie T. Generating Recipient-Eentered Explanations About Drug Prescription. Artif. Intell. Med. 8(2):1996;123-145.
15. de Rosis F, Grasso F. Simulating Plausible Conflict-Resolution Dialogues. In: Levy and Wilks [30], p. 55-61.
16. de Rosis F, Grasso F, Castelfranchi F, Poggi I. Goals and Attitude Change in Generation: a Case Study in Health Education. In: Proc. ECAI-96 Workshop on Modelling confiicts in AI, 1996. p. 23-28.
17. de Zegher I., Venot A., Milstein C., Sene B., De Carolis B., Pizzutilo S. OPADE - Optimization of Drug Prescription Using Advanced Informatics. Comp. Methods Program. Biomed. 45(1-2):1994;131-136.
18. DiMarco C, Hirst G, Hovy E. Generation by Selection and Repair as a Method for Adapting Text for the Individual Reader. In: Proc. Workshop on Flexible Hypertext, Eighth ACM Int. Hypertext Conf., 1997.
19. Fiedier A, Huang X. Aggregation in the Generation of Argumentative Texts. In: Proc. 5th Eur. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1995. p. 5-9.
20. Forsythe D. Using Ethnography in the Design of an Explanation System. Expert Syst. Appl. 8(4):1995;403-417.
21. Haimowitz I. Modeling all Dialogue System Participants to generate Empathetic Responses. Comp. Methods Program. Biomed. 35:1991;321-330.
22. Hammond K. Explaining and Repairing Plans that Fail. Artif. Intell. 45(1-2):1990;173-228.
23. Hovy E. Unresolved Issues in Paragraph Planning. In: Dale et al. [11] (chapter 2, p. 17-45).
24. Hovy E. Automated Discourse Generation using Discourse Structure Relations. Artif. Intell. 63(1-2):1993;341-385.
25. Hovy E, Wanner L. Managing Sentence Planning Requirements. In: Jokinen et al. [27] (p. 53-58).
26. Jacobs P. Why Text Planning isn't (still) Planning. Ortony A., Slack J., Stock O. Communication from an Artificial Intelligence Perspective. 1992;73-89 SpringerVerlag.
27. Jokinen K, Maybury M, Zock M, Zukerman I, editors. Proc. ECAI-96 Workshop on: Gaps and Bridges: New directions in Planning and NLG, 1996.
28. Kolln M, Employing User Attitudes in Text Planning. In: Proc. 5th Eur. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1995. p. 163-179.
29. Korf R. Planning as Search: a Quantitative Approach. Artif. Intell. 33(1):1987;65-88.
30. Levy D, Wilks Y, editors. Proc. First Int. Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation, 1997.
31. Mann W, Matthiessen C, Thompson S. Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis. Technical report, USC/Information Sciences Institute, 1989.
32. Mann W., Thompson S. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text. 8(3):1988;243-281.
33. Marcu D. Building up Rhetorical Structure Trees. In: Proc. 13th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI96) 1996;2:1069-1074.
34. Maybury N.I. Communicative Acts for Explanation Generation. Int. J. Man-Machine Stud. 37:1992;135-172.
35. Meteer M. Bridging the Generation Gap Between Text Planning and Linguistic Realization. Comp. Intell. 7(4):1991;296-304.
36. Miller P. A critiquing approach to expert computer advice: ATTENDING. London: Pitman Advanced, 1984.
37. Moore J., Paris C. Exploiting User Feedback to Compensate for the Unreliability of User Models. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 2(4):1992.
38. OPADE. Specification of the OPADE Kernel. AIM European Community Project A2027, 1993. Deliverable n. 5.
39. Penman. The Penman Documentation. Technical report, USC/Information Sciences Institute, 1989.
40. Rambow O, Korelsky T. Applied Text Generation. In: Proc. 3rd Conf. on Applied Natural Language Processing, 1992. p. 40-47.
41. Reed C, Long D, Fox M. Planning Persuasive Argument. In: Jokinen et al. [27] (p. 47-50).
42. Reiter E. Has a Consensus NL Generation Architecture Appeared and Is It Psycholinguistically Plausible? In: Proc. 7th Int. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1994. p. 163-170.
43. Reiter E. NLG vs. Templates. In: Proc. 5th Eur. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1995. p. 95-105.
44. Reiter E, Osman L. Tailored Patient Information: Some Issues and Questions. In: Proc. ACL-1997 Workshop 'From Research to Commercial Application: Making NLP Technology Work in Practice', 1997. p. 29-34.
45. Scott D, Sieckenius de Souza C. Getting the Message Across RST-based Text Generation. In: Dale et al. [11] (chapter 3, p. 47-73).
46. Sene B., Venot A., de Zegher I., Milstein C., Errore S., de Rosis F., Strauch G. A General Model of Drug Prescription. Methods Inform. Med. 34(4):1995;310-317.
47. Vander Linden K., Martin J. Expressing Rhetorical Relations in Instructional Text: a Case Study of the Purpose Relation. Comp. Linguist. 21(1):1995;29-57.
48. Walker M., Moore J. Empirical Studies in Discourse. Comp. Ling. 23(1):1997;1-12.
49. Walker M, Rambow O. The Role of Cognitive Modeling in Communicative Intentions. In: Proc. 7th Int. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1994.
50. Wanner L, Hovy E. The HealthDoc Sentence Planner. In: Proc. 8th Int. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1996. p. 1-10.
51. Wilkinson J. Aggregation in Natural Language Generation: Another Look. Co-op work term report, Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, 1995.
52. Woods W. Transition Network Grammars for Natural Language Analysis. Commun. ACM. 13(10):1970;591-606.
53. Zukerman I, McConachy R. Generating Explanations across Several User Models: Maximizing Belief while Avoiding Boredom and Overload. In: Proc. 5th Eur. Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 1995. p. 143-161.