MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508296198

The Art of Finding Arguments

2015· article· de· W2508296198 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Walton

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2015
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgumentation theoryArgument (complex analysis)RhetoricEpistemologyPropositionSubject (documents)EnlightenmentPhilosophySociologyComputer scienceLinguisticsWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kienpointner (1997) showed how the ancient status theory and the Aristotelian theory of topics are partsof an art of argument invention that selects premises to be used in a chain of argumentation from a database of premises accepted by the audience a speaker is trying to persuade. He showed how pursuit of this art of finding arguments, although discredited in the Enlightenment, has recently has been taken up again by argumentation theorists. In this paper it is shown that with the recent advent of computational argumentation systems in artificial intelligence, a technology is now available to help an arguer to find arguments that support her claim, and to refute counter-arguments opposing her claim .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207