Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining2016) 2016
DOI: 10.18653/v1/w16-2811
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identifying Argument Components through TextRank

Abstract: In this paper we examine the application of an unsupervised extractive summarisation algorithm, TextRank, on a different task, the identification of argumentative components. Our main motivation is to examine whether there is any potential overlap between extractive summarisation and argument mining, and whether approaches used in summarisation (which typically model a document as a whole) can have a positive effect on tasks of argument mining. Evaluation has been performed on two corpora containing user posts… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…TextRank, on the other hand, takes into account the lexical meaning of the text unit, as well [26,27]. In [28], TextRank is extended in an unsupervised extractive summarization scheme that can examine whether there is any potential overlap between the extractive summarization and argument mining, while in [29], a system that applies a series of syntactic filters to identify part-of-speech tags is described, that is used to evaluate selected words as possible keywords.…”
Section: Keyword Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…TextRank, on the other hand, takes into account the lexical meaning of the text unit, as well [26,27]. In [28], TextRank is extended in an unsupervised extractive summarization scheme that can examine whether there is any potential overlap between the extractive summarization and argument mining, while in [29], a system that applies a series of syntactic filters to identify part-of-speech tags is described, that is used to evaluate selected words as possible keywords.…”
Section: Keyword Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In (Petasis and Karkaletsis, 2016), the score was determined for each sentence, and the method was evaluated correct if the top one or two sentences according to the score includes the target major claim or claim.…”
Section: Component Classification Using Textrankmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For Divisiveness, we then look at the sentiment polarity of each text span compared to the rest of the corpus to measure how many others are in conflict with it and the amount of support which the two sides have. TextRank has been successfully applied to many natural language processing applications, including identifying those parts of a text which are argumentative (as opposed to those which are not) (Petasis and Karkaletsis, 2016).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%