[en] n this paper, we present the annotation guidelines we defined for annotating arguments in political debates. In our guidelines, we consider each argument as being composed of a claim and one or more premises. The annotation process has started with defining the guidelines for three annotators containing examples from the data, and continued as cyclic process of evaluation and revision on the annotation to resolve the ambiguities in the guidelines. In this paper, we briefly discuss the resulting annotated dataset and give some examples of the annotation scheme. The quality of the annotated dataset is assessed by computing inter-annotator agreement using Krippendorf’s α coefficient on a portion of the dataset.
Centre de recherche :
- Luxembourg Centre for Contemporary and Digital History (C2DH) > Doctoral Training Unit (DTU)
Disciplines :
Sciences informatiques
Auteur, co-auteur :
HADDADAN, Shohreh ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
Cabrio, Elena
Villata, Serena
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Annotation of Argument Components in Political Debates Data
Date de publication/diffusion :
2018
Nom de la manifestation :
Workshop on Annotation in Digital Humanities
Date de la manifestation :
from 6-08-2018 to 10-08-2018
Titre de l'ouvrage principal :
Proceedings of the Workshop on Annotation in Digital Humanities
Duthie, R., Budzynska, K., and Reed, C. (2016). Mining ethos in political debate. In COMMA.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Measuring the reliability of qualitative text analysis data. Quality and Quantity, 38:787–800.
Lippi, M. and Torroni, P. (2016a). Argument mining from speech: Detecting claims in political debates. In AAAI.
Lippi, M. and Torroni, P. (2016b). Argumentation mining: State of the art and emerging trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 16(2):10.
Menini, S., Cabrio, E., Tonelli, S., and Villata, S. (2018). Never retreat, never retract: Argumentation analysis for political speeches. In AAAI-2018.
Naderi, N. and Hirst, G. (2015). Argumentation mining in parliamentary discourse. In CMNA.
Stab, C. and Gurevych, I. (2014). Annotating argument components and relations in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1501–1510.
Stenetorp, P., Pyysalo, S., Topić, G., Ohta, T., Ananiadou, S., and Tsujii, J. (2012). Brat: a web-based tool for nlp-assisted text annotation. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 102–107. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. 1958. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Walker, M., Tree, J. F., Anand, P., Abbott, R., and King, J. (2012). A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In LREC.
Zarefsky, D. (1993). Lincoln, Douglas, and slavery: In the crucible of public debate. University of Chicago Press.
