IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v68y2017i12p2783-2794.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discourse relations in rationale‐containing text‐segments

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Xiao
  • Nadia K. Conroy

Abstract

Offering one's perspective and justifying it has become a common practice in online text‐based communications, just as it is in typical, face‐to‐face communication. Compared to the face‐to‐face communications, it can be particularly more challenging for users to understand and evaluate another's perspective in online communications. On the other hand, the availability of the communication record in online communications offers a potential to leverage computational techniques to automatically detect user opinions and rationales. One promising approach to automatically detect the rationales is to detect the common discourse relations in rationale texts. However, no empirical work has been done with regard to which discourse relations are commonly present in the users’ rationales in online communications. To fill this gap, we annotated the discourse relations in the text segments that contain the rationales (N = 527 text segments). These text segments are obtained from five datasets that consist of five online posts and the first 100 comments. We identified 10 discourse relations that are commonly present in this sample. Our finding marks an important contribution to this rationale detection approach. We encourage more empirical work, preferably with a larger sample, to examine the generalizability of our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Xiao & Nadia K. Conroy, 2017. "Discourse relations in rationale‐containing text‐segments," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2783-2794, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:68:y:2017:i:12:p:2783-2794
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.23882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23882
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.23882?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Peldszus & Manfred Stede, 2013. "From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in Texts: A Survey," International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), IGI Global, vol. 7(1), pages 1-31, January.
    2. Lu Xiao, 2014. "Effects of rationale awareness in online ideation crowdsourcing tasks," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(8), pages 1707-1720, August.
    3. Lu Xiao & Nicole Askin, 2014. "What influences online deliberation? A wikipedia study," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(5), pages 898-910, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lu Xiao & Jennifer Stromer-Galley & Ágnes Sándor, 2017. "Toward the Automated Detection of Individuals’ Rationales in Large-Scale Online Open Participative Activities: A Conceptual Framework," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 891-910, September.
    2. Emmanuel W. Ayaburi & Jaeung Lee & Michele Maasberg, 0. "Understanding Crowdsourcing Contest Fitness Strategic Decision Factors and Performance: An Expectation-Confirmation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    3. Emmanuel W. Ayaburi & Jaeung Lee & Michele Maasberg, 2020. "Understanding Crowdsourcing Contest Fitness Strategic Decision Factors and Performance: An Expectation-Confirmation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1227-1240, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:68:y:2017:i:12:p:2783-2794. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.