ON THE EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION OF STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES IN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSES

George Gkotsis, Nikos Karacapilidis

Abstract

Motivated by the fact that contemporary argumentation systems provide low or no support with regards to argument and information processing, this paper presents a generic computational model that is able to identify and assess structural similarities in argumentative discourses. Focusing on the structure of such discourses, we sketch representative scenarios where the proposed model can be applied at a wide range of argumentation systems in order to define, elaborate and mine meaningful argumentation patterns. We argue that the proposed model is of considerable contribution to both theoretical and practical aspects of argumentation.

References

  1. Aamodt, A. and Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning. Proc. MLnet Summer School on Machine Learning and Knowledge Acquisition, pages 1-58.
  2. Avouris, N., Dimtracopoulou, A., Komis, V., and Fidas, C. (2002). OCAF: An object-oriented model of analysis of collaborative problem solving. Computer Support for Collaboratie Learning: Foundations for A Cscl Community (cscl 2002 Proceedings), page 92.
  3. Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. Foundations of argumentative text processing, pages 179-202.
  4. Caminada, M. and Amgoud, L. (2007). On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171(5-6):286-310.
  5. Dimitrakopoulou, A., Petrou, A., Martinez, A., Marcos, J., Kollias, V., Jermann, P., Harrer, A., Dimitriadis, Y., and Bollen, L. (2006). State of the art of interaction analysis for Metacognitive Support & Diagnosis. Interaction Analaysis (IA) JEIRP Deliverable D.31.1.1.
  6. Eemeren, F. H. V., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse (Studies in Rhetoric and Communication). University of Alabama Press.
  7. Fesakis, G., Petrou, A., and Dimitracopoulou, A. (2003). Collaboration activity function: an interaction analysis tool for computer supported collaborative learning activities. In 4th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2004), pages 196-200.
  8. Hay, M., Miklau, G., Jensen, D., Towsley, D., and Weis, P. (2008). Resisting structural re-identification in anonymized social networks. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment archive, 1(1):102-114.
  9. Hopcroft, J. and Karp, R. (1973). An n5/2 Algorithm for Maximum Matchings in Bipartite Graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 2:225.
  10. Johnson, C. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The internet and higher education, 4(1):45-60.
  11. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., and Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4):557-571.
  12. Karacapilidis, N., Tzagarakis, M., Karousos, N., Gkotsis, G., Kallistros, V., Christodoulou, S., Mettouris, C., and Nousia, N. (2009). Tackling cognitively-complex collaboration with cope it! International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 4(3):22-38.
  13. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge Univ Pr.
  14. Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 14(3-4):961-980.
  15. Rees, M. (1995). Analysing and evaluating problemsolving discussions. Argumentation, 9(2):343-362.
  16. Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Zimmermann, B., Palus, C., Drath, W., Horth, D., Domingue, J., Motta, E., et al. (2001). Compendium: Making meetings into knowledge events. In Knowledge Technologies, volume 2001. Citeseer.
  17. Shum, B. et al. (2008). Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation. In Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pages 97-108. IOS Press.
  18. Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., and Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In Proceedings of AI-Ed, volume 95, pages 266-273. Citeseer.
  19. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Weinberger, A. and Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1):71-95.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Gkotsis G. and Karacapilidis N. (2010). ON THE EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION OF STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES IN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSES . In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technology - Volume 1: WEBIST, ISBN 978-989-674-025-2, pages 137-143. DOI: 10.5220/0002845201370143


in Bibtex Style

@conference{webist10,
author={George Gkotsis and Nikos Karacapilidis},
title={ON THE EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION OF STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES IN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSES},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technology - Volume 1: WEBIST,},
year={2010},
pages={137-143},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002845201370143},
isbn={978-989-674-025-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technology - Volume 1: WEBIST,
TI - ON THE EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION OF STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES IN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSES
SN - 978-989-674-025-2
AU - Gkotsis G.
AU - Karacapilidis N.
PY - 2010
SP - 137
EP - 143
DO - 10.5220/0002845201370143