|
--- |
|
license: unlicense |
|
--- |
|
The model Intent Recognition for Argumentation Labels is intended to predict argumentation labels from a conversation collection. It employs a deep learning architecture trained on a huge corpus of labelled argumentation intentions. To properly categorise the arguments labels in a particular discussion, the model makes use of the capabilities of natural language processing and machine learning techniques. |
|
|
|
Intended Use: |
|
|
|
This model is designed to identify argumentation labels in conversation datasets automatically. It can help with a variety of applications, including argument mining, debate analysis, conversation comprehension, and sentiment analysis. The model, by anticipating argumentation labels, can assist researchers, policymakers, and conversational AI developers in understanding the structure and content of arguments in dialogues. |
|
|
|
Ethical Considerations and Limitations: |
|
|
|
1. Domain-specific: The performance of the model may differ based on the domain of the conversation dataset on which it was trained. It is possible that it will not generalise well to other domains, resulting in reduced accuracy. |
|
2. Bias and fairness: The predictions of the model are based on the training data that it has been exposed to. The model may display biassed behaviour if the training data is biassed or contains unjust representations. |
|
3. Inadequate knowledge of context: The model may struggle to grasp subtle contexts, sarcasm, or implicit information in the discussion. Rather of depending primarily on its forecasts, it should be utilised as a tool to aid human analysts. |
|
4. Privacy and data protection: It is critical to guarantee that the conversation datasets used for training and assessment do not include any personally identifiable information. |
|
5. Evaluation metrics: To reduce biases, the model's performance should be assessed using relevant measures, such as accuracy, recall, F1 score, and perhaps fairness metrics. |
|
|
|
Training Data: |
|
|
|
The model was trained on a broad and representative discussion dataset containing labelled argumentation intents. Human annotators manually annotated talks from diverse sources and domains using argumentation labels to form the training data. The dataset was meticulously vetted to assure its high quality and dependability. |
|
|
|
|
