Research on computational argumentation faces the problem of how to automatically assess the quality of an argument or argumentation. While different quality dimensions have been approached in natural language processing, a common understanding of argumentation quality is still missing. This paper presents the first holistic work on computational argumentation quality in natural language. We comprehensively survey the diverse existing theories and approaches to assess logical, rhetorical, and dialectical quality dimensions, and we derive a systematic taxonomy from these. In addition, we provide a corpus with 320 arguments, annotated for all 15 dimensions in the taxonomy. Our results establish a common ground for research on computational argumentation quality assessment.
Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.
BackgroundMutations as sources of evolution have long been the focus of attention in the biomedical literature. Accessing the mutational information and their impacts on protein properties facilitates research in various domains, such as enzymology and pharmacology. However, manually curating the rich and fast growing repository of biomedical literature is expensive and time-consuming. As a solution, text mining approaches have increasingly been deployed in the biomedical domain. While the detection of single-point mutations is well covered by existing systems, challenges still exist in grounding impacts to their respective mutations and recognizing the affected protein properties, in particular kinetic and stability properties together with physical quantities.ResultsWe present an ontology model for mutation impacts, together with a comprehensive text mining system for extracting and analysing mutation impact information from full-text articles. Organisms, as sources of proteins, are extracted to help disambiguation of genes and proteins. Our system then detects mutation series to correctly ground detected impacts using novel heuristics. It also extracts the affected protein properties, in particular kinetic and stability properties, as well as the magnitude of the effects and validates these relations against the domain ontology. The output of our system can be provided in various formats, in particular by populating an OWL-DL ontology, which can then be queried to provide structured information. The performance of the system is evaluated on our manually annotated corpora. In the impact detection task, our system achieves a precision of 70.4%-71.1%, a recall of 71.3%-71.5%, and grounds the detected impacts with an accuracy of 76.5%-77%. The developed system, including resources, evaluation data and end-user and developer documentation is freely available under an open source license at http://www.semanticsoftware.info/open-mutation-miner.ConclusionWe present Open Mutation Miner (OMM), the first comprehensive, fully open-source approach to automatically extract impacts and related relevant information from the biomedical literature. We assessed the performance of our work on manually annotated corpora and the results show the reliability of our approach. The representation of the extracted information into a structured format facilitates knowledge management and aids in database curation and correction. Furthermore, access to the analysis results is provided through multiple interfaces, including web services for automated data integration and desktop-based solutions for end user interactions.
witte@semanticsoftware.info.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.