Search Results for author:
Found 5 papers, 3 papers with code
IRAC: A Domain-Specific Annotated Corpus of Implicit Reasoning in Arguments
To solve this problem, we hypothesize that as human reasoning is guided by innate collection of domain-specific knowledge, it might be beneficial to create such a domain-specific corpus for machines.
Exploring Methodologies for Collecting High-Quality Implicit Reasoning in Arguments
Annotation of implicit reasoning (i. e., warrant) in arguments is a critical resource to train models in gaining deeper understanding and correct interpretation of arguments.
Teach Me How to Improve My Argumentation Skills: A Survey on Feedback in Argumentation
The use of argumentation in education has been shown to improve critical thinking skills for end-users such as students, and computational models for argumentation have been developed to assist in this process.
LPAttack: A Feasible Annotation Scheme for Capturing Logic Pattern of Attacks in Arguments
Attacking is not always straightforward and often comprise complex rhetorical moves such that arguers might agree with a logic of an argument while attacking another logic.
TYPIC: A Corpus of Template-Based Diagnostic Comments on Argumentation
In this paper, we define three criteria that a template set should satisfy: expressiveness, informativeness, and uniqueness, and verify the feasibility of creating a template set that satisfies these criteria as a first trial.
