CHIS@FIRE: Overview of the Shared Task on Consumer Health Information Search

People are increasingly turning to the World Wide Web to find answers for their health and lifestyle queries, While search engines are effective in answering direct factual questions such as ‘What are the symptoms of a disease X?’, they are not so effective in addressing complex consumer health queries, which do not have a single definitive answer, such as ‘Is treatment X effective for disease Y?’. Instead, the users are presented with a vast number of search results with often contradictory perspectives and no definitive conclusion. The term “Consumer Health Information Search” (CHIS) is used to denote such information retrieval search tasks, for which there is “No Single Best Correct Answer”. The proposed CHIS track aims to investigate complex health information search in scenarios where users search for health information with more than just a single correct answer, and look for multiple perspectives from diverse sources both from medical research and from real world patient narratives.

[1]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Cats Rule and Dogs Drool!: Classifying Stance in Online Debate , 2011, WASSA@ACL.

[2]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Making Conversational Structure Explicit: Identification of Initiation-response Pairs within Online Discussions , 2010, NAACL.

[3]  Stan Matwin,et al.  From Argumentation Mining to Stance Classification , 2015, ArgMining@HLT-NAACL.

[4]  Elad Yom-Tov,et al.  Information is in the eye of the beholder: Seeking information on the MMR vaccine through an Internet search engine , 2014, AMIA.

[5]  Swapna Somasundaran,et al.  Recognizing Stances in Ideological On-Line Debates , 2010, HLT-NAACL 2010.

[6]  Zornitsa Kozareva,et al.  Determining the Polarity and Source of Opinions Expressed in Political Debates , 2009, CICLing.

[7]  Quoc V. Le,et al.  Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents , 2014, ICML.

[8]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Stance Classification using Dialogic Properties of Persuasion , 2012, NAACL.

[9]  Adam Faulkner,et al.  Automated Classification of Stance in Student Essays: An Approach Using Stance Target Information and the Wikipedia Link-Based Measure , 2014, FLAIRS.

[10]  Andreas Vlachos,et al.  Emergent: a novel data-set for stance classification , 2016, NAACL.

[11]  Owen Rambow,et al.  Identifying Justifications in Written Dialogs , 2011, 2011 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Semantic Computing.

[12]  Claire Cardie,et al.  Multi-Level Structured Models for Document-Level Sentiment Classification , 2010, EMNLP.

[13]  Swapna Somasundaran,et al.  Recognizing Stances in Online Debates , 2009, ACL.

[14]  Matt Thomas,et al.  Get out the vote: Determining support or opposition from Congressional floor-debate transcripts , 2006, EMNLP.

[15]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  Mining newsgroups using networks arising from social behavior , 2003, WWW '03.

[16]  Rob Malouf,et al.  Taking sides: user classification for informal online political discourse , 2008, Internet Res..

[17]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  Simple BM25 extension to multiple weighted fields , 2004, CIKM '04.

[18]  Raymond H. Putra,et al.  Support or Oppose? Classifying Positions in Online Debates from Reply Activities and Opinion Expressions , 2010, COLING.