Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.052310854 = product of:
  0.10462171 = sum of:
    0.10462171 = product of:
      0.20924342 = sum of:
        0.20924342 = weight(_text_:q in 1660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20924342 = score(doc=1660,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 1660, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1660)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the ways in which informational support based on user-generated content is provided for the needs of leisure-related travel planning in an online discussion group and a Q&A site. Attention is paid to the grounds by which the participants bolster the informational support. The findings draw on the analysis of 200 threads of a Finnish online discussion group and a Yahoo! Answers Q&A (question and answer) forum. Three main types of informational support were identified: providing factual information, providing advice, and providing personal opinion. The grounds used in the answers varied across the types of informational support. While providing factual information, the most popular ground was description of the attributes of an entity. In the context of providing advice, reference to external sources of information was employed most frequently. Finally, although providing personal opinions, the participants most often bolstered their views by articulating positive or negative evaluations of an entity. Overall, regarding the grounds, there were more similarities than differences between the discussion group and the Q&A site.

0.044387236 = product of:
  0.08877447 = sum of:
    0.08877447 = product of:
      0.17754894 = sum of:
        0.17754894 = weight(_text_:q in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17754894 = score(doc=517,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates the argument patterns in Yahoo! Answers, a major question and answer (Q&A) site. Mainly drawing on the ideas of Toulmin (), argument pattern is conceptualized as a set of 5 major elements: claim, counterclaim, rebuttal, support, and grounds. The combinations of these elements result in diverse argument patterns. Failed opening consists of an initial claim only, whereas nonoppositional argument pattern also includes indications of support. Oppositional argument pattern contains the elements of counterclaim and rebuttal. Mixed argument pattern entails all 5 elements. The empirical data were gathered by downloading from Yahoo! Answers 100 discussion threads discussing global warming-a controversial topic providing a fertile ground for arguments for and against. Of the argument patterns, failed openings were most frequent, followed by oppositional, nonoppositional, and mixed patterns. In most cases, the participants grounded their arguments by drawing on personal beliefs and facts. The findings suggest that oppositional and mixed argument patterns provide more opportunities for the assessment of the quality and credibility of answers, as compared to failed openings and nonoppositional argument patterns.

0.0074773864 = product of:
  0.014954773 = sum of:
    0.014954773 = product of:
      0.029909546 = sum of:
        0.029909546 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029909546 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3713, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0074773864 = product of:
  0.014954773 = sum of:
    0.014954773 = product of:
      0.029909546 = sum of:
        0.029909546 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029909546 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5498, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22