Towards Assessing Argumentation Annotation - A First Step
This paper presents a first attempt at using Walton{'}s argumentation schemes for annotating arguments in Swedish political text and assessing the feasibility of using this particular set of schemes with two linguistically trained annotators. The texts are not pre-annotated with argumentation structure beforehand. The results show that the annotators differ both in number of annotated arguments and selection of the conclusion and premises which make up the arguments. They also differ in their labeling of the schemes, but grouping the schemes increases their agreement. The outcome from this will be used to develop guidelines for future annotations.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
ArgBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Computational Argumentation Tasks
Argumentation skills are an essential toolkit for large language models (LLMs). These skills are crucial in various use cases, including self-reflection, debating collaboratively for diverse answers, and countering hate …
Creating a Domain-diverse Corpus for Theory-based Argument Quality Assessment
Computational models of argument quality (AQ) have focused primarily on assessing the overall quality or just one specific characteristic of an argument, such as its convincingness or its clarity. However, previous work …
Crowdsourcing Argumentation Structures in Chinese Hotel Reviews
Argumentation mining aims at automatically extracting the premises-claim discourse structures in natural language texts. There is a great demand for argumentation corpora for customer reviews. However, due to the controv…
Disagreement Space in Argument Analysis
For a highly subjective task such as recognising speaker intention and argumentation, the traditional way of generating gold standards is to aggregate a number of labels into a single one. However, this seriously neglect…
Reports of personal experiences and stories in argumentation: datasets and analysis
Reports of personal experiences or stories can play a crucial role in argumentation, as they represent an immediate and (often) relatable way to back up one’s position with respect to a given topic. They are easy to unde…
Argument Miningdomain classification