Argument Quality Assessment

# Argument Quality Assessment
# Based on Wachsmuth et al., 2017 taxonomy
# Paper: https://aclanthology.org/2020.coling-main.402/
#
# Three main quality dimensions:
#
# 1. COGENCY (Logic) - Is the reasoning valid?
#    - Local Acceptability: Are premises believable?
#    - Local Relevance: Do premises support the conclusion?
#    - Local Sufficiency: Is there enough support?
#
# 2. EFFECTIVENESS (Rhetoric) - Is it persuasive?
#    - Credibility: Does the author seem trustworthy?
#    - Emotional Appeal: Does it engage emotions appropriately?
#    - Clarity: Is the argument easy to understand?
#
# 3. REASONABLENESS (Dialectic) - Does it contribute to resolution?
#    - Global Acceptability: Are claims defensible?
#    - Global Relevance: Does it address the issue?
#    - Global Sufficiency: Does it adequately resolve the issue?
#
# Note: Correlations with overall quality - Cogency (.84), Effectiveness (.81), Reasonableness (.86)

annotation_task_name: "Argument Quality Assessment"
task_dir: "."

data_files:
  - sample-data.json
item_properties:
  id_key: "id"
  text_key: "argument"

instance_display:
  fields:
    - key: topic
      type: text
      label: "Topic"
    - key: argument
      type: text
      label: "Argument"

output_annotation_dir: "annotation_output/"
export_annotation_format: "jsonl"

annotation_schemes:
  # Overall Quality Rating
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: overall_quality
    description: "Rate the OVERALL quality of this argument (1=very poor, 5=excellent)"
    labels:
      - "1 - Very Poor"
      - "2 - Poor"
      - "3 - Average"
      - "4 - Good"
      - "5 - Excellent"
    keyboard_shortcuts:
      "1 - Very Poor": "1"
      "2 - Poor": "2"
      "3 - Average": "3"
      "4 - Good": "4"
      "5 - Excellent": "5"
    tooltips:
      "1 - Very Poor": "Fails on most quality dimensions; not convincing at all"
      "2 - Poor": "Significant weaknesses in logic, persuasion, or relevance"
      "3 - Average": "Adequate argument with some strengths and weaknesses"
      "4 - Good": "Strong argument with minor issues"
      "5 - Excellent": "Highly convincing, well-reasoned, and relevant"

  # Dimension 1: Cogency (Logic)
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: cogency
    description: "COGENCY: Is the argument logically valid? Are the premises acceptable, relevant, and sufficient?"
    labels:
      - "1 - Not cogent"
      - "2 - Slightly cogent"
      - "3 - Moderately cogent"
      - "4 - Quite cogent"
      - "5 - Very cogent"
    keyboard_shortcuts:
      "1 - Not cogent": "q"
      "2 - Slightly cogent": "w"
      "3 - Moderately cogent": "e"
      "4 - Quite cogent": "r"
      "5 - Very cogent": "t"
    tooltips:
      "1 - Not cogent": "Premises are false, irrelevant, or completely insufficient"
      "2 - Slightly cogent": "Major logical flaws; premises barely support conclusion"
      "3 - Moderately cogent": "Some logical issues but reasoning is followable"
      "4 - Quite cogent": "Sound reasoning with minor gaps"
      "5 - Very cogent": "Excellent logic; premises clearly and fully support conclusion"

  # Dimension 2: Effectiveness (Rhetoric)
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: effectiveness
    description: "EFFECTIVENESS: Is the argument persuasive? Does it establish credibility and engage the audience?"
    labels:
      - "1 - Not effective"
      - "2 - Slightly effective"
      - "3 - Moderately effective"
      - "4 - Quite effective"
      - "5 - Very effective"
    keyboard_shortcuts:
      "1 - Not effective": "a"
      "2 - Slightly effective": "s"
      "3 - Moderately effective": "d"
      "4 - Quite effective": "f"
      "5 - Very effective": "g"
    tooltips:
      "1 - Not effective": "Unpersuasive; poor clarity, no credibility, inappropriate tone"
      "2 - Slightly effective": "Weak persuasive appeal; hard to follow or unconvincing"
      "3 - Moderately effective": "Somewhat persuasive but could be more compelling"
      "4 - Quite effective": "Persuasive with good clarity and appropriate appeal"
      "5 - Very effective": "Highly persuasive; clear, credible, and engaging"

  # Dimension 3: Reasonableness (Dialectic)
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: reasonableness
    description: "REASONABLENESS: Does the argument contribute to resolving the issue? Is it globally relevant and acceptable?"
    labels:
      - "1 - Not reasonable"
      - "2 - Slightly reasonable"
      - "3 - Moderately reasonable"
      - "4 - Quite reasonable"
      - "5 - Very reasonable"
    keyboard_shortcuts:
      "1 - Not reasonable": "z"
      "2 - Slightly reasonable": "x"
      "3 - Moderately reasonable": "c"
      "4 - Quite reasonable": "v"
      "5 - Very reasonable": "b"
    tooltips:
      "1 - Not reasonable": "Does not address the issue; claims are indefensible"
      "2 - Slightly reasonable": "Tangential to the issue; weak contribution"
      "3 - Moderately reasonable": "Addresses the issue but doesn't fully resolve it"
      "4 - Quite reasonable": "Relevant contribution that advances the discussion"
      "5 - Very reasonable": "Directly addresses and substantially resolves the issue"

  # Specific quality issues (optional detailed feedback)
  - annotation_type: multiselect
    name: quality_issues
    description: "Select any specific quality issues present in this argument"
    labels:
      - "Factual errors"
      - "Logical fallacy"
      - "Missing evidence"
      - "Unclear reasoning"
      - "Off-topic"
      - "Ad hominem attack"
      - "Emotional manipulation"
      - "Overgeneralization"
      - "No issues detected"
    tooltips:
      "Factual errors": "Contains false or unverifiable claims"
      "Logical fallacy": "Contains identifiable reasoning error (e.g., straw man, false dichotomy)"
      "Missing evidence": "Makes claims without supporting evidence"
      "Unclear reasoning": "Hard to follow the logical flow"
      "Off-topic": "Does not address the actual topic/question"
      "Ad hominem attack": "Attacks person rather than argument"
      "Emotional manipulation": "Uses fear, anger, or other emotions inappropriately"
      "Overgeneralization": "Makes sweeping claims from limited evidence"
      "No issues detected": "No significant quality issues identified"

user_config:
  allow_all_users: true
max_annotations_per_user: 100
max_annotations_per_item: 3