For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
31
views
95
references
 Top references
cited by
28
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      1,137
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse

      Author(s): ,
      Publication date Created:
      Publication date (Print):
      Journal: Computational Linguistics
      Publisher: MIT Press - Journals

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Conference Proceedings: not found

          The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit

          Christopher Manning, Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer … (2014)
          Article 0 comments Cited 488 times – based on 0 reviews
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.

            Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber (2011)
            Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.
            Article 0 comments Cited 287 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks.

              Cornelia Betsch, Frank Renkewitz, Tilmann Betsch … (2010)
              This large-scale Internet-experiment tests whether vaccine-critical pages raise perceptions of the riskiness of vaccinations and alter vaccination intentions. We manipulated the information environment (vaccine-critical website, control, both) and the focus of search (on vaccination risks, omission risks, no focus). Our analyses reveal that accessing vaccine-critical websites for five to 10 minutes increases the perception of risk of vaccinating and decreases the perception of risk of omitting vaccinations as well as the intentions to vaccinate. In line with the 'risk-as-feelings' approach, the affect elicited by the vaccine-critical websites was positively related to changes in risk perception.
              Article 0 comments Cited 162 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Computational Linguistics
                Abbreviated Title: Computational Linguistics
                Publisher: MIT Press - Journals
                ISSN (Print): 0891-2017
                ISSN (Electronic): 1530-9312
                Publication date Created: April 2017
                Publication date (Print): April 2017
                Volume: 43
                Issue: 1
                Pages: 125-179
                Article
                DOI: 10.1162/COLI_a_00276
                SO-VID: d7c086bf-d67e-486a-8b72-be46ad7293e4
                Copyright © © 2017
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,137

                See all similar

                Cited by28

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors792

                See all reference authors