Datasets:
Tasks:
Text Classification
Modalities:
Text
Formats:
text
Languages:
English
Size:
10K - 100K
License:
| license: openrail | |
| task_categories: | |
| - text-classification | |
| language: | |
| - en | |
| tags: | |
| - argument-mining | |
| - argument-identification | |
| pretty_name: AMSR | |
| size_categories: | |
| - 1K<n<10K | |
| Argument Mining in Scientific Reviews (AMSR) | |
| We release a new dataset of peer-reviews from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments, called AMSR (**A**rgument **M**ining in **S**cientific **R**eviews). | |
| 1. Raw Data | |
| conferences_raw/ contains directories for each conference we scraped (e.g., [iclr20](./data/iclr20)). | |
| The respective directory of each conference comprises multiple `*.json` files, where every file contains the information belonging to a single paper, such as the title, the abstract, the submission date and the reviews. | |
| The reviews are stored in a list called `"review_content"`. | |
| 2. Cleaned Data | |
| conferences_cleaned/ contains reviews and papers where we removed all unwated character sequences from the reviews. | |
| For details on the details of the preprocessing steps, please refer to our paper "Argument Mining Driven Analysis of Peer-Reviews". | |
| 3. Annotated Data | |
| conferences_annotated/ contains sentence_level and token_level data of 77 reviews, annotated each by 3 annotators. | |
| We have three labels: | |
| PRO - Arguments supporting the acceptance of the paper. | |
| CON - Arguments opposing the acceptance of the paper. | |
| NON - Non-argumentative sentences/tokens which have no influence on the acceptance of the paper. | |
| And following we have three tasks: | |
| Argumentation Detection: | |
| A binary classification of whether a text span is an argument. | |
| The classes are denoted by ARG and NON, where ARG is the union of PRO and CON classes. | |
| Stance Detection: | |
| A binary classification whether an argumentative text span is supporting or opposing the paper acceptance. | |
| he model is trained and evaluated only on argumentative PRO and CON text spans. | |
| Joint Detection: | |
| A multi-class classification between the classes PRO, CON and NON, i.e. the combination of argumentation and stance detection. | |
| 4. Generalization across Conferences | |
| conferences_annotated_generalization/ contains token_level data of 77 reviews split diffrently than in 3. | |
| We studied the model’s generalization to peer-reviews for papers from other (sub)domains. | |
| To this end, wereduce the test set to only contain reviews from the GI’20conference. | |
| The focus of the GI’20 conference is ComputerGraphics and Human-Computer Interaction, while the otherconferences are focused on Representation Learning, AI andMedical Imaging. | |
| We consider the GI’20 as a subdomain since all conferences are from the domain of computer science. | |
| NO-GI: | |
| The original training dataset with all sentences from reviews of GI’20 removed. | |
| ALL | |
| A resampling of the original training dataset of the same size as NO-GI, with sentences from all conferences. | |
| 5. jupyter-Notebook | |
| ReviewStat is a jupyter notebook, which shows interesting statistics of the raw dataset. |