Natural language generation of biomedical argumentation for lay audiences
Argument and Computation 2 (1):23 - 50 (2011)
| Abstract | This article presents an architecture for natural language generation of biomedical argumentation. The goal is to reconstruct the normative arguments that a domain expert would provide, in a manner that is transparent to a lay audience. Transparency means that an argument's structure and functional components are accessible to its audience. Transparency is necessary before an audience can fully comprehend, evaluate or challenge an argument, or re-evaluate it in light of new findings about the case or changes in scientific knowledge. The architecture has been implemented and evaluated in the Genetics Information Expression Assistant, a prototype system for drafting genetic counselling patient letters. Argument generation makes use of abstract argumentation schemes. Derived from the analysis of arguments used in genetic counselling, these mainly causal argument patterns refer to abstract properties of qualitative causal domain models | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesNancy Green (2010). Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
Rodger Kibble (2007). Generating Coherence Relations Via Internal Argumentation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4).
Hugo Mercier & Brent Strickland (2012). Evaluating Arguments From the Reaction of the Audience. Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):365 - 378.
Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou (forthcoming). What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education. Argumentation:1-19.
J. Katzav & C. A. Reed (2004). On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation 18 (2):239-259.
Peter Jan Schellens & Menno de Jong (2004). Argumentation Schemes in Persuasive Brochures. Argumentation 18 (3):295-323.
Christof Rapp & Tim Wagner (2013). On Some Aristotelian Sources of Modern Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 27 (1):7-30.
Douglas Walton (2012). Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument. Argumentation 26 (3):369-391.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
D. N. Walton (2004). Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Nancy Green (2012). Argumentation and Risk Communication About Genetic Testing: Challenges for Healthcare Consumers and Implications for Computer Systems. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):113-129.
D. Walton & C. A. Reed (2005). Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes. Synthese 145 (3):339 - 370.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-02-17Total downloads3 ( #202,107 of 549,737 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
