<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W01-1627">
  <Title>Dialogue tagsets in oncology</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Implementations
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> All the dialogue tagging work in oncology has been done manually. A few primitive software tools have been developed to support the tagging process and to analyse the results.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Ong et al (1998) have developed a Turbo Pascal \computerized version&amp;quot; of the RIAS coding system. The advantages they claim for it give one some idea of average state of its eld: \With this program, classi cation of utterances can be done directly on computer. As a result, the extra step of entering paper and pencil data into the computer is omitted. Also, sequential information is kept. Moreover, because the ten last classi cations are constantly visible on the screen there is direct feedback about the ongoing conversation. This provides an important memory aid with respect to which utterance has to be coded next. As a consequence, the task becomes less attention demanding and therefore less error- prone.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> By giving the opportunity to save the content of the last coded utterance, an additional memory aid is provided for shorter and longer breaks.&amp;quot; (Ong et al 1998:400) Butow's group have developed a \computer-based interaction analysis system&amp;quot; with three parts: \(i) micro level analysis coded in real time and retaining the sequence of events, (ii) event counts and (iii) macro level analysis of consultation style and a ect&amp;quot; (Butow et al 1995:1116). \At the micro level the aim is to break the consultation down into its components and to characterise, count and/or time them... At the macro level, the aim is to characterise the consultation in a more holistic way, such as patientcentred vs doctor-centred, authoritarian vs a liative or friendly vs hostile.&amp;quot; (ibid:1115) All three forms of analysis depend on counting and timing utterance-events classi ed according to the three-dimensional model described above, although Butow et al stress that they also \retain the sequence of events&amp;quot;. \In future analyses we will explore sequential information e ects&amp;quot; (ibid:1120). This is evidently a signi cant innovation in its eld. The fundamental concept of a grammar of dialogue is simply missing from the oncology work. On the other hand, their techniques for \macro-level&amp;quot; analysis of dialogues may well have something to o er, especially in the subtle areas of modelling and adapting to speakers' attitudes and underlying intentions.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>