<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="lindahl-2020-annotating">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Annotating argumentation in Swedish social media</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Anna</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Lindahl</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>2020-12</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Argument Mining</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Elena</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Cabrio</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Serena</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Villata</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <originInfo>
            <publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
            <place>
                <placeTerm type="text">Online</placeTerm>
            </place>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>This paper presents a small study of annotating argumentation in Swedish social media. Annotators were asked to annotate spans of argumentation in 9 threads from two discussion forums. At the post level, Cohen’s k and Krippendorff’s alpha 0.48 was achieved. When manually inspecting the annotations the annotators seemed to agree when conditions in the guidelines were explicitly met, but implicit argumentation and opinions, resulting in annotators having to interpret what’s missing in the text, caused disagreements.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">lindahl-2020-annotating</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://aclanthology.org/2020.argmining-1.11</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>2020-12</date>
        <extent unit="page">
            <start>100</start>
            <end>105</end>
        </extent>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Annotating argumentation in Swedish social media
%A Lindahl, Anna
%Y Cabrio, Elena
%Y Villata, Serena
%S Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Argument Mining
%D 2020
%8 December
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Online
%F lindahl-2020-annotating
%X This paper presents a small study of annotating argumentation in Swedish social media. Annotators were asked to annotate spans of argumentation in 9 threads from two discussion forums. At the post level, Cohen’s k and Krippendorff’s alpha 0.48 was achieved. When manually inspecting the annotations the annotators seemed to agree when conditions in the guidelines were explicitly met, but implicit argumentation and opinions, resulting in annotators having to interpret what’s missing in the text, caused disagreements.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2020.argmining-1.11
%P 100-105

Markdown (Informal)

[Annotating argumentation in Swedish social media](https://aclanthology.org/2020.argmining-1.11) (Lindahl, ArgMining 2020)

• Annotating argumentation in Swedish social media (Lindahl, ArgMining 2020)

ACL

• Anna Lindahl. 2020. Annotating argumentation in Swedish social media. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Argument Mining, pages 100–105, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.