MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557475746 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9_2

Argumentation Mining in Parliamentary Discourse

2016· book-chapter· en· W2557475746 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgumentativeFraming (construction)Argumentation theoryComputer scienceFrame (networking)EmbeddingPoliticsCoding (social sciences)Discourse analysisLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingSociologyPolitical scienceLawSocial scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine whether using frame choices in forum statements can help us identify framing strategies in parliamentary discourse. In this analysis, we show how features based on embedding representations can improve the discovery of various frames in argumentative political speech. Given the complex nature of the parliamentary discourse, the initial results that are presented here are promising. We further present a manually annotated corpus for frame recognition in parliamentary discourse.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.250 · 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