Data-driven interaction patterns: Authority and information sharing in dialogue

AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report

Volumn FS-11-02, Issue , 2011, Pages 22-29

  Mayfield, Elijah ^a   Garbus, Michael ^a   Adamson, David ^a   Rosé, Carolyn Penstein ^a  

^a Carnegie Mellon University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL FRAMEWORK; DATA-DRIVEN; DIALOGUE ACTS; GROUP PERFORMANCE; INFORMATION SHARING; INTERACTION PATTERN; MICRO LEVEL; SIMILAR PATTERN; TASK-BASED;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; INTELLIGENT AGENTS;

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION;

EID: 84856451493     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Anderson, A., and Boyle, E. 1994. Forms of introduction in dialogues: their discourse contexts and communicative consequences. In Language and Cognitive Processes.
2. Anderson, A.; Bader, M.; Bard, E.; Boyle, E.; Doherty, G.; Garrod, S.; Isard, S.; Kowtko, J.; McAllister, J.; Miller, J.; Sotillo, C.; Thompson, H.; and Weinert, R. 1991. The here map task corpus. In Language and Speech.
3. Arora, S.; Mayfield, E.; Rosé, C. P.; and Nyberg, E. 2010. Sentiment classification using automatically extracted subgraph features. In NAACL Workshop on Emotion in Text.
4. Bard, E.; Anderson, A.; Sotillo, C.; Aylett, M.; Doherty-Sneddon, G.; and Newlands, A. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. In Memory and Language.
5. Bohus, D., and Horvitz, E. 2011. Multiparty turn taking in situated dialog. In Procedings of SIGDIAL.
6. Bohus, D. 2007. Error Awareness and Recovery in Conversational Spoken Language Interfaces. Ph.D. Dissertation.
7. Boyer, K.; Grafsgaard, J.; Ha, E. Y.; Phillips, R.; and Lester, J. 2011. An affect-enriched dialogue act classification model for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
8. Boyle, E.; Anderson, A.; and Newlands, A. 1994. The effects of visibility on dialogue and performance in a cooperative problem solving task. In Language and Speech.
9. Brown, P., and Dell, G. 1987. Adapting production to comprehen- sion: The explicit mention of instruments. In Cognitive Psychology.
10. Bunt, H.; Alexandersson, J.; Carletta, J.; Choe, J.-W.; Fang, A. C.; Hasida, K.; Lee, K.; Petukhova, V.; Popescu-Belis, A.; Romary, L.; Soria, C.; and Traum, D. 2010. Towards an iso standard for dialogue act annotation. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.
11. Carletta, J. 1992. Risk-Taking and Recovery in TaskOriented Dialogue. Ph.D. Dissertation.
12. Clark, H., and Krych, M. 2004. Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. In Memory and Language.
13. Clark, H. 1996. Using Language.
14. Davies, B. 2010. Principles we talk by: Testing dialogue principles in task-oriented dialogues. In Pragmatics.
15. Forbes-Riley, K., and Litman, D. 2005. Using bigrams to identify relationships between student certainness states and tutor responses in a spoken dialogue corpus. In Proceedings of SIGDIAL.
16. Gianfortoni, P.; Adamson, D.; and Rosé, C. P. 2011. Modeling of stylistic variation in social media with stretchy patterns. In EMNLP Workshop on Modelling of Dialects and Language Varieties.
17. Guthrie, D.; Allison, B.; Liu, W.; Guthrie, L.; and Wilks, Y. 2006. A closer look at skip-gram modelling. In Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.
18. Howley, I.; Mayfield, E.; and Rosé, C. P. 2011. Missing something? authority in collaborative learning. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.
19. Howley, I.; Mayfield, E.; and Rosé, C. P. In Press. Linguistic analysis methods for studying small groups. In International Handbook of Collaborative Learning.
20. Jurafsky, D.; Bates, R.; Coccaro, N.; Martin, R.; Meteer, M.; Ries, K.; Shriberg, E.; Stolcke, A.; Taylor, P.; and Ess-Dykema, C. V. 1998. Switchboard discourse language modelling final report. Technical report.
21. Kumar, R.; Beuth, J.; and Rosé, C. P. 2011. Conversational strategies that support idea generation productivity in groups. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.
22. Lockridge, C., and Brennan, S. 2002. Addressees needs influence speakers early syntactic choices. In Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.
23. Martin, J., and Rose, D. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause.
24. Mayfield, E., and Rosé, C. P. 2010. An interactive tool for supporting error analysis for text mining. In NAACL Demonstration Session.
25. Mayfield, E., and Rosé, C. P. 2011. Recognizing authority in dialogue with an integer linear programming constrained model. In Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics.
26. Reitter, D., and Moore, J. 2007. Predicting success in dialogue. In Proceedings of ACL.
27. Rich, C.; Sidner, C.; and Lesh, N. 2000. Collagen: Applying collaborative discourse theory to human-computer interaction.
28. Riloff, E.; Patwardhan, S.; and Wiebe, J. 2006. Feature subsumption for opinion analysis. In Proceedings of EMNLP.
29. Schober, M. 1995. Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations? In Discourse Processes.
30. Shadbolt, N. 1984. Constituting reference in natural language: the problem of referential opacity. Ph.D. Dissertation.
31. Viethen, J., and Dale, R. 2008. The use of spatial relations in referring expression generation. In Conference on Natural Language Generation.
32. Witten, I., and Frank, E. 2002. Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations.