Argument Mining from Speech: Detecting Claims in Political Debates
نویسندگان
چکیده
The automatic extraction of arguments from text, also known as argument mining, has recently become a hot topic in artificial intelligence. Current research has only focused on linguistic analysis. However, in many domains where communication may be also vocal or visual, paralinguistic features too may contribute to the transmission of the message that arguments intend to convey. For example, in political debates a crucial role is played by speech. The research question we address in this work is whether in such domains one can improve claim detection for argument mining, by employing features from text and speech in combination. To explore this hypothesis, we develop a machine learning classifier and train it on an original dataset based on the 2015 UK political elections debate.
منابع مشابه
Machine learning and sentiment analysis approaches for the analysis of Parliamentary debates
In this thesis the author seeks to establish the most appropriate mechanism for conducting sentiment analysis with respect to political debates; firstly so as to predict their outcome and secondly to support a mechanism to provide for the visualisation of such debates in the context of further analysis. To this end two alternative approaches are considered, a classification-based approach and a...
متن کاملA Context-Aware Approach for Detecting Worth-Checking Claims in Political Debates
In the context of investigative journalism, we address the problem of automatically identifying which claims in a given document are most worthy and should be prioritized for fact-checking. Despite its importance, this is a relatively understudied problem. Thus, we create a new corpus of political debates, containing statements that have been fact-checked by nine reputable sources, and we train...
متن کاملPolitical affects in public space: normative blind-spots in non-representational ontologies
Recent theoretical debates in human geography have been characterised by a preference for ontological styles of argument. The ontologisation of theory is associated with distinctive claims about rethinking ‘the political’. This paper draws on an avowedly ‘non-representationalist’ philosophical perspective to develop an interpretation of ontology-talk as a genre that provides reasons for certain...
متن کاملSocratic Hubris; A Way to Understanding Socrates Trial and Execution
There are several debates around why Socrates executed but none of them has explained why he executed at seventy. I think Socratic hubris can explain it. In fact, if we refer to “earlier Socrates” dialogues that cover life of Socrates from youth to seventy years, it is obvious that Socrates on effort to find and present a good life appealed to speech and used it to cross-examine Athenians. Howe...
متن کاملIdentifying High-Level Organizational Elements in Argumentative Discourse
Argumentative discourse contains not only language expressing claims and evidence, but also language used to organize these claims and pieces of evidence. Differentiating between the two may be useful for many applications, such as those that focus on the content (e.g., relation extraction) of arguments and those that focus on the structure of arguments (e.g., automated essay scoring). We propo...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2016