The Skeptic Web Service: Utilising Argument Technologies for Reason-Checking

Visser, Jacky; Lawrence, John

doi:10.3233/faia220180

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such patterns have been created mainly for the argument from consequence scheme. Visser et al (2018) analyze TV political debates on the US 2016 presidential election. This dataset had already been annotated with IAT (to be discussed later), but in this work, the authors have followed two additional theories to annotate the inference relations identified: Walton's argumentation schemes and Wagemans' Periodic Table of Arguments.…”

Section: Walton's Argumentation Schemes Annotationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are aware of a single annotation project making use of the Periodic Table of Arguments model. As mentioned earlier, Visser et al (2018) analyze TV political debates on the US 2016 presidential election. They do so by extending the original IAT-based inference relation annotations with Walton's argumentation schemes and with Wagemans' model, focusing on the first general election debate between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump.…”

Section: Periodic Table Of Arguments Annotationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Argumentation models and their use in corpus annotation: Practice, prospects, and challenges

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of argumentation is transversal to several research domains, from philosophy to linguistics, from the law to computer science and artificial intelligence. In discourse analysis, several distinct models have been proposed to harness argumentation, each with a different focus or aim. To analyze the use of argumentation in natural language, several corpora annotation efforts have been carried out, with a more or less explicit grounding on one of such theoretical argumentation models. In fact, given the recent growing interest in argument mining applications, argument-annotated corpora are crucial to train machine learning models in a supervised way. However, the proliferation of such corpora has led to a wide disparity in the granularity of the argument annotations employed. In this paper, we review the most relevant theoretical argumentation models, after which we survey argument annotation projects closely following those theoretical models. We also highlight the main simplifications that are often introduced in practice. Furthermore, we glimpse other annotation efforts that are not so theoretically grounded but instead follow a shallower approach. It turns out that most argument annotation projects make their own assumptions and simplifications, both in terms of the textual genre they focus on and in terms of adapting the adopted theoretical argumentation model for their own agenda. Issues of compatibility among argument-annotated corpora are discussed by looking at the problem from a syntactical, semantic, and practical perspective. Finally, we discuss current and prospective applications of models that take advantage of argument-annotated corpora.

show abstract

Section: Walton's Argumentation Schemes Annotationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Periodic Table Of Arguments Annotationsmentioning

confidence: 99%