Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.662823
Title: Argumentative zoning : information extraction from scientific text
Author: Teufel, Simone
Awarding Body: University of Edinburgh
Current Institution: University of Edinburgh
Date of Award: 1999
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
We present a new type of analysis for scientific text which we call Argumentative Zoning. We demonstrate that this type of text analysis can be used for generating user-tailored and task-tailored summarises or for performing more informative citation analyses. We also demonstrate that our type of analysis can be applied to unrestricted text, both automatically and by humans. The corpus we use for the analysis (80 conference papers in computational linguistics) is a difficult test bed; it shows great variation with respect to subdomain, writing style, register and linguistic expression. We present reliability studies which we performed on this corpus and for which we used two unrelated trained annotators. The definition of our seven categories (argumentative zones) is not specific to the domain, only to the text type; it is based on the typical argumentation to be found in scientific articles. It reflects the attribution of intellectual ownership in articles, expressions of author’s stance and typical statements about problem-solving processes. On the basis of sentential features, we use a Naive Bayesian model and an ngram model over sentences to estimate a sentence’s argumentative status, taking the hand-annotated corpus as training material. An alternative, symbolic system uses the features in a rule-based way. The general working hypothesis of this thesis is that empirical discourse studies can contribute to practical document management problems: the analysis of a significant amount of naturally occurring text is essential for discourse linguistic theories, and the application of a robust discourse and argumentation analysis can make text understanding techniques for practical document management more robust.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.662823  DOI: Not available
Share: