A Corpus for Argumentative Writing Support in German

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13674v1
• Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:52:12 GMT
• Title: A Corpus for Argumentative Writing Support in German
• Authors: Thiemo Wambsganss, Christina Niklaus, Matthias S\"ollner, Siegfried Handschuh, Jan Marco Leimeister
• Abstract summary: We propose an annotation scheme that allows to model claims and premises as well as support and attack relations. We conduct an annotation study with three annotators on 50 persuasive essays to evaluate our scheme. We present our freely available corpus of 1,000 persuasive student-written peer reviews on business models.
• Score: 23.677732296698622
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we present a novel annotation approach to capture claims and premises of arguments and their relations in student-written persuasive peer reviews on business models in German language. We propose an annotation scheme based on annotation guidelines that allows to model claims and premises as well as support and attack relations for capturing the structure of argumentative discourse in student-written peer reviews. We conduct an annotation study with three annotators on 50 persuasive essays to evaluate our annotation scheme. The obtained inter-rater agreement of $\alpha=0.57$ for argument components and $\alpha=0.49$ for argumentative relations indicates that the proposed annotation scheme successfully guides annotators to moderate agreement. Finally, we present our freely available corpus of 1,000 persuasive student-written peer reviews on business models and our annotation guidelines to encourage future research on the design and development of argumentative writing support systems for students.

Related papers

• AutoPersuade: A Framework for Evaluating and Explaining Persuasive Arguments [0.5242869847419834]
  We introduce AutoPersuade, a framework for constructing persuasive messages. We develop a novel topic model to identify argument features that influence persuasiveness. We use this model to predict the effectiveness of new arguments and assess the causal impact of different components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T15:46:05Z)
• Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
  In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots. Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system. We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Natural Language Decompositions of Implicit Content Enable Better Text Representations [56.85319224208865]
  We introduce a method for the analysis of text that takes implicitly communicated content explicitly into account. We use a large language model to produce sets of propositions that are inferentially related to the text that has been observed. Our results suggest that modeling the meanings behind observed language, rather than the literal text alone, is a valuable direction for NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T23:45:20Z)
• An Item Response Theory Framework for Persuasion [3.0938904602244346]
  We apply Item Response Theory, popular in education and political science research, to the analysis of argument persuasiveness in language. We empirically evaluate the model's performance on three datasets, including a novel dataset in the area of political advocacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-24T19:14:11Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• Discourse Analysis for Evaluating Coherence in Video Paragraph Captions [99.37090317971312]
  We are exploring a novel discourse based framework to evaluate the coherence of video paragraphs. Central to our approach is the discourse representation of videos, which helps in modeling coherence of paragraphs conditioned on coherence of videos. Our experiment results have shown that the proposed framework evaluates coherence of video paragraphs significantly better than all the baseline methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T04:23:08Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussions [33.621647816641925]
  We show that discourse cues from rebuttals can shed light on the quality and interpretation of reviews. This paper presents a new labeled dataset of 20k sentences contained in 506 review-rebuttal pairs in English, annotated by experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-16T09:18:12Z)
• Annotation and Classification of Evidence and Reasoning Revisions in Argumentative Writing [0.9449650062296824]
  We introduce an annotation scheme to capture the nature of sentence-level revisions of evidence use and reasoning. We show that reliable manual annotation can be achieved and that revision annotations correlate with a holistic assessment of essay improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-14T20:58:26Z)
• Supporting Cognitive and Emotional Empathic Writing of Students [15.125096968712063]
  We present an annotation approach to capturing emotional and cognitive empathy in student-written peer reviews on business models in German. We trained predictive models to detect the annotated empathy structures and embedded them in an adaptive writing support system. We evaluated our tool in a peer learning exercise with 58 students and found promising results for perceived empathy skill learning, perceived feedback accuracy, and intention to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-31T09:18:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.