On the Influence of Discourse Relations in Persuasive Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the relationship between Persuasion Techniques (PTs) and Discourse Relations (DRs) by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and prompt engineering. Since no dataset annotated with both PTs and DRs exists, we took the SemEval 2023 Task 3 dataset labelled with 19 PTs as a starting point and developed LLM-based classifiers to label each instance of the dataset with one of the 22 PDTB 3.0 level-2 DRs. In total, four LLMs were evaluated using 10 different prompts, resulting in 40 unique DR classifiers. Ensemble models using different majority-pooling strategies were used to create 5 silver datasets of instances labelled with both persuasion techniques and level-2 PDTB senses. The silver dataset sizes vary from 1,281 instances to 204 instances, depending on the majority pooling technique used. Statistical analysis of these silver datasets shows that six discourse relations (namely Cause, Purpose, Contrast, Cause+Belief, Concession, and Condition) play a crucial role in persuasive texts, especially in the use of Loaded Language, Exaggeration/Minimisation, Repetition and to cast Doubt. This insight can contribute to detecting online propaganda and misinformation, as well as to our general understanding of effective communication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".