MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525398541

Argument Mining by Applying Argumentation Schemes

2012· article· en· W1525398541 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Walton

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgumentation theoryArgument (complex analysis)Informal logicArgument mapIdentification (biology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEpistemologyData scienceWork (physics)Natural language processingMathematics educationPsychologyEngineeringPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper builds a method to help a student of informal logic to go through a text of discourse in a natural language and identify common types of arguments that occur in the text. It is shown how this procedure is very helpful for students learning informal logic skills, as they sometimes misidentify arguments. The paper presents the state-of-the-art on what resources are available to build a useful argument identification procedure, and includes a survey of work done on automated argument mining tools used in artificial intelligence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207