Mining Arguments from 19th Century Philosophical Texts Using Topic Based Modelling

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 79-87

  Lawrence, John ^a   Reed, Chris ^a   Allen, Colin ^b   McAlister, Simon ^c   Ravenscroft, Andrew ^c   Bourget, David ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b Ndiana University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MACHINE LEARNING; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

'CURRENT; 19TH CENTURY; ARGUMENT STRUCTURES; MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS; MANUAL ANALYSIS; NEW APPROACHES; TOPIC MODELING; TOPIC-BASED MODEL;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 85121825127     PISSN: 0736587X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. F. Bex, J. Lawrence, M. Snaith, and C.A. Reed. 2013. Implementing the argument web. Communications of the ACM, 56(10):56-73.
2. P.C. Cardoso, M. Taboada, and T.A. Pardo. 2013. On the contribution of discourse structure to topic segmentation. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL), pages 92-96. Association for Computational Linguistics.
3. V.W. Feng and G. Hirst. 2011. Classifying arguments by scheme. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1, pages 987-996. Association for Computational Linguistics.
4. Maurice A. Finocchiaro. 1980. Galileo and the art of reasoning. rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science New York, NY, 61.
5. Thomas F Gordon, Henry Prakken, and Douglas Walton. 2007. The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10):875-896.
6. John Lawrence, Floris Bex, Chris Reed, and Mark Snaith. 2012. Aifdb: Infrastructure for the argument web. In COMMA, pages 515-516.
7. N. Madnani, M. Heilman, J. Tetreault, and M. Chodorow. 2012. Identifying high-level organizational elements in argumentative discourse. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 20-28. Association for Computational Linguistics.
8. M.F. Moens, E. Boiy, R.M. Palau, and C. Reed. 2007. Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages 225-230. ACM.
9. R.M. Palau and M.F. Moens. 2009. Argumentation mining: The detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 98-107. ACM.
10. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Now Pub.
11. Chris Reed and Derek Long. 1997. Content ordering in the generation of persuasive discourse. In IJCAI (2), pages 1022-1029. Morgan Kaufmann.
12. Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13(04):961-979.
13. S. Teufel, J. Carletta, and M. Moens. 1999. An annotation scheme for discourse-level argumentation in research articles. In Proceedings of the ninth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 110-117. Association for Computational Linguistics.
14. Tim Van Gelder. 2007. The rationale for rationale. Law, probability and risk, 6(1-4):23-42.
15. DWalton, C Reed, and F Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
16. D Walton. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
17. Theresa Wilson, Janyce Wiebe, and Paul Hoffmann. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phraselevel sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 347-354. Association for Computational Linguistics.