Simone Teufel
ABSTRACT
In order to build robust automatic abstracting systems, there is a need for better training resources than are currently available. In this paper, we introduce an annotation scheme for scientific articles which can be used to build such a resource in a consistent way. The seven categories of the scheme are based on rhetorical moves of argumentation. Our experimental results show that the scheme is stable, reproducible and intuitive to use.
- Jan Alexandersson, Elisabeth Maier, and Norbert Reithinger. 1995. A robust and efficient three-layered dialogue component for a speech-to-speech translation system. In Proceedings of the Seventh European Meeting of the ACL, pages 188--193. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ronald Brandow, Karl Mitze, and Lisa F. Rau. 1995. Automatic condensation of electronic publications by sentence selection. Information Processing and Management, 31(5): 675--685. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jean Carletta, Amy Isard, Stephen Isard, Jacqueline C. Kowtko, Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon, and Anne H. Anderson. 1997. The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23(1): 13--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jean Carletta. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2): 249--254. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robin Cohen. 1984. A computational theory of the function of clue words in argument understanding. In Proceedings of COLING-84, pages 251--255. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anna Duszak. 1994. Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21: 291--313.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Jurafsky, Elizabeth Shriberg, and Debra Biasca, 1997. Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL Shallow-Discourse-Function Annotation Coders Manual. University of Colorado, Institute of Cognitive Science. TR-97-02.Google Scholar
- Joost G. Kircz. 1991. The rhetorical structure of scientific articles: the case for argumentational analysis in information retrieval. Journal of documentation, 47(4): 354--372.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Klaus Krippendorff. 1980. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Commtext series; 5. Sage, Beverly Hills London.Google Scholar
- Julian Kupiec, Jan O. Pedersen, and Francine Chen. 1995. A trainable document summarizer. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM-SIGIR Conference, Association for Computing Machinery, Special Interest Group Information Retrieval, pages 68--73. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elizabeth DuRoss Liddy. 1991. The discourse-level structure of empirical abstracts: an exploratory study. Information Processing and Management, 27(1): 55--81. Google ScholarDigital Library
- William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical structure theory: description and construction of text structures. In G. Kempen, editor, Natural Language Generation: New Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology and Linguistics, pages 85--95, Dordrecht. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
- Daniel Marcu. 1997. From discourse structures to text summaries. In Inderjeet Mani and Mark T. Maybury, editors, Proceedings of the workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarization, in association with ACL/EACL-97.Google Scholar
- Greg Myers. 1992. In this paper we report..- speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(4): 295--313.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chris D. Paice. 1990. Constructing literature abstracts by computer: techniques and prospects. Information Processing and Management, 26: 171--186. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. J. Rath, A. Resnick, and T. R. Savage. 1961. The formation of abstracts by the selection of sentences. American Documentation, 12(2): 139--143.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lisa F. Rau, Paul S. Jacobs, and Uri Zernik. 1989. Information extraction and text processing using linguistic knowledge acquisition. Information Processing and Management, 25(4): 419--428. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sidney Siegel and N. J. Jr. Castellan. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, second edition edition.Google Scholar
- Karen Spärck Jones. 1998. Automatic summarising: factors and directions. In ACL/EACL-97 Workshop 'Intelligent Scalable Text Summarization'.Google Scholar
- John Swales. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Geoff Thompson and Yiyun Ye. 1991. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4): 365--382.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sheryl R. Young and Phillip J. Hayes. 1985. Automatic classification and summarization of banking telexes. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications.Google Scholar
- An annotation scheme for discourse-level argumentation in research articles
Recommendations
Discourse-level annotation for investigating information structure
DiscAnnotation '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse AnnotationWe present discourse-level annotation of newspaper texts in German and English, as part of an ongoing project aimed at investigating information structure from a cross-linguistic perspective. Rather than annotating some specific notion of information ...
Discourse annotation in the Monroe corpus
DiscAnnotation '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse AnnotationWe describe a method for annotating spoken dialog corpora using both automatic and manual annotation. Our semi-automated method for corpus development results in a corpus combining rich semantics, discourse information and reference annotation, and ...
The annotation scheme of the Turkish Discourse Bank and an evaluation of inconsistent annotations
LAW IV '10: Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation WorkshopIn this paper, we report on the annotation procedures we developed for annotating the Turkish Discourse Bank (TDB), an effort that extends the Penn Discourse Tree Bank (PDTB) annotation style by using it for annotating Turkish discourse. After a brief ...
Comments