Concept-based document readability in domain specific information retrieval

International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 540-549

  Yan, Xin ^a   Song, Dawei ^b   Li, Xue ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Document ranking; Document readability; Document scope and cohesion

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; DATABASE SYSTEMS; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PROBLEM SOLVING; USER INTERFACES;

DOCUMENT RANKING; DOCUMENT READABILITY; DOCUMENT SCOPE AND COHESION; ONLINE RESOURCES;

ONLINE SEARCHING;

EID: 34547614444     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1183614.1183692     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. J. S. Chall and E. Dale. Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula.Brookline Books, 1995.
2. R. Flesch. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Phychology,32:221-233, 1948.
3. P. Foltz, W. Kintsch, and T. Landauer. The measurement of textual cohererence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes,25:285- 307, 1998.
4. S. Fox, L. Rainie, J. Horrigan, A. Lenhart, T. Spooner, M. Burke, O. Lewis, and C Carter. The online health care revolution: How the web helps americans take better care of themselves. Technical report, The Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2000.
5. M. A. GRABER, D. M. D'ALESSANDRO, and J. JOHNSON-WEST. Reading level of privacy policies on internet health web sites. J Fam Pract.,51(7):642-5, 2002.
6. L. Granka, T. Joachims, and G. Gay. Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in www-search. In Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Sheffield, UK, 2004. ACM Press.
7. R. Gunning. The technique of clear writing.Mcgraw-Hill, New York, 1952.
8. W. Kintsch. Comprehension: A paradigm of cognition.Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998.
9. G. R. Klare. The formative years. In Readability: its Past, Present and Future.international Reading Association, 1988.
10. T. K. Landauer, P. W. Foltz, and D. Laham. Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes,25(2&3):259-284, 1998.
11. G. MA, R. CM, and K. B. Readability levels of patient education material on the world wide web. J Fam Pract.,48(1):58-61, 1999.
12. D. R. McCallum and J. L. Peterson. Computer-based readability indexes. In Proceedings of the ACM '82 conference,pages 44 - 48. ACM Press, 1982.
13. J. Redish. Readability formulas have even more limitations than klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation,24(3):132 - 137, 2000.
14. M. E. Schreiner, B. Rehder, T. K. Landauer, and D. Laham. How latent semantic analysis (Isa) represents essay semantic content: Technical issues and analysis. In Proceedings of the 19th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,page 1041, 1998.
15. E. A. Smith and R. J. Senter. Automated readability index. AMRL-TR-66-22,1967.
16. X. Yan, X. Li, and D. Song. Document re-ranking by generality in bio-medical information retrieval. In The 6th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering,volume LNCS 3806, pages 376-389, New York City, New York, 2005.
17. X. Yan, X. Li, and D. Song. Document generality: its computation for ranking. In Australian Computer Science Communications,volume 28, pages 109-118. ACM Digital Library, 2006.