Manual Identification of Arguments with Implicit Conclusions Using
            Semantic Rules for Argument Mining

Green, Nancy L.

doi:10.18653/v1/w17-5109

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the schemes in the catalogue have not been rigorously evaluated for inter-annotator agreement. However, a previous study (Green, 2017) suggested that some of the schemes, such as Agreement, as well as implicit conclusions of arguments, could be consistently identified. The current catalogue improves upon the materials used in our previous study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Proposed Method for Annotation of Scientific Arguments in Terms of Semantic Relations and Argument Schemes

Green¹

2018

Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Argument Mining

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a proposed method for annotation of scientific arguments in biological/biomedical journal articles. Semantic entities and relations are used to represent the propositional content of arguments in instances of argument schemes. We describe an experiment in which we encoded the arguments in a journal article to identify issues in this approach. Our catalogue of argument schemes and a copy of the annotated article are now publically available.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Proposed Method for Annotation of Scientific Arguments in Terms of Semantic Relations and Argument Schemes

Green¹

2018

Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Argument Mining

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather than annotate a scientific corpus at the text level, in [12] we propose creation of a semantically annotated corpus of arguments in a partially automated, two-step process. The first step would be to identify the entities and relations in the text.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…implemented in the logic programs. Then another small study was done to see if, given the revised catalog and excerpts of the CRAFT article containing arguments with implicit conclusions, other researchers could reliably identify the premises and argumentation scheme for five types of argument [12]. Although mainly successful, the study revealed some confusion between schemes such as Analogy and Consistent Explanation, pointing to the need to better explain those schemes in a catalog for use by human annotators.…”

Section: Argumentation Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards mining scientific discourse using argumentation schemes

Green

2018

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dominant approach to argument mining has been to treat it as a machine learning problem based upon superficial text features, and to treat the relationships between arguments as either support or attack. However, accurately summarizing argumentation in scientific research articles requires a deeper understanding of the text and a richer model of relationships between arguments. First, this paper presents an argumentation scheme-based approach to mining a class of biomedical research articles. Argumentation schemes implemented as logic programs are formulated in terms of semantic predicates that could be obtained from a text by use of biomedical/biological natural language processing tools. The logic programs can be used to extract the underlying scheme name, premises, and implicit or explicit conclusion of an argument. Then this paper explores how arguments in a research article occur within a narrative of scientific discovery, how they are related to each other, and some implications.

show abstract

“…Green in [26] provided an argument action method and inter-argument relations for the annotation of arguments in study papers. In one of a few researches that presented in an argument concert on the biomedical filed.…”

Section: Toulmin's Model In Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Toulmin Argumentation Approach for Medical Applications

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The argumentation field in Artificial Intelligence has increases significantly resulting in a practical body of work. This survey explores the techniques that are used to accomplish the foundations for argumentation. It also provides a review of the recent advances in the argumentation techniques that specialize in using Toulmin’s model when dealing with conflicting problems in the medicine domain. It also displays a discussion of the challenges faced in the automatic extraction of a deeper understanding of inference techniques. The drug conflict problem is considered to be one of most challenging aspects in medicine filed in the world. This survey also reviews Toulmin's model of argumentation in terms of solving conflicting problems in different domains that are specialized in solving drug conflicts in medicine.

show abstract

Manual Identification of Arguments with Implicit Conclusions Using Semantic Rules for Argument Mining

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

Proposed Method for Annotation of Scientific Arguments in Terms of Semantic Relations and Argument Schemes

Proposed Method for Annotation of Scientific Arguments in Terms of Semantic Relations and Argument Schemes

Towards mining scientific discourse using argumentation schemes

A Survey of Toulmin Argumentation Approach for Medical Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About