Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025637524 = product of:
  0.05127505 = sum of:
    0.05127505 = product of:
      0.1025501 = sum of:
        0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1025501 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, 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.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=4477,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This exploratory study contributes to research on relevance assessment by specifying criteria that are used in the judgment of information quality and credibility in Internet discussion forums. To this end, 4,739 messages posted to 160 Finnish discussion threads were analyzed. Of the messages, 20.5% contained explicit judgments of the quality of information and credibility in other messages. In the judgments, the forum participants employed both positive criteria such as validity of information and negative criteria such as dishonesty in argumentation. In the evaluation of the quality of the message's information content, the most frequently used criteria pertained to the usefulness, correctness, and specificity of information. In the judgment of information credibility, the main criteria included the reputation, expertise, and honesty of the author of the message. Since Internet discussion forums tend to emphasize the role of disputational discourse questioning rather than accepting the views presented by others, mainly negative criteria were used in the judgments. The generality of our claims is limited because we chose forums that focused on sensitive and value-laden topics; future work could explore credibility and quality judgment in other forums and forumlike venues such as question and answer sites as well as exploring how quality and credibility judgments interact with other aspects of forum use.

0.0085950075 = product of:
  0.017190015 = sum of:
    0.017190015 = product of:
      0.03438003 = sum of:
        0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03438003 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = 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

0.0085950075 = product of:
  0.017190015 = sum of:
    0.017190015 = product of:
      0.03438003 = sum of:
        0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03438003 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = 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