Claim Perspectives (Perspectrum)

# Claim Perspectives (Perspectrum)
# Based on Chen et al., NAACL 2019
# Paper: https://aclanthology.org/N19-1053/
# Dataset: https://github.com/CogComp/perspectrum
#
# Perspectrum captures diverse viewpoints on controversial claims.
# For each claim, multiple perspectives are collected that either
# support or oppose the claim, along with evidence.
#
# Key Concepts:
# - Claim: A controversial statement that can be debated
# - Perspective: A specific viewpoint on the claim
# - Evidence: Documents that support the perspective
# - Stance: Whether the perspective supports or opposes the claim
#
# Annotation Task:
# Given a claim and a perspective, determine:
# 1. Does the perspective SUPPORT or OPPOSE the claim?
# 2. Is the perspective relevant to the claim?
# 3. How strong is this perspective?
#
# Guidelines:
# 1. Read the claim carefully first
# 2. A perspective SUPPORTS if accepting it would support the claim
# 3. A perspective OPPOSES if accepting it would undermine the claim
# 4. Perspectives can be factual or opinion-based

port: 8000
server_name: localhost
task_name: "Claim Perspectives"

data_files:
  - sample-data.json
id_key: id
text_key: pair

output_file: annotations.json

annotation_schemes:
  # Step 1: Stance classification
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: stance
    description: "Does the PERSPECTIVE support or oppose the CLAIM?"
    labels:
      - "Supports"
      - "Opposes"
      - "Neutral/Unclear"
    tooltips:
      "Supports": "The perspective, if true, would support the claim"
      "Opposes": "The perspective, if true, would oppose or undermine the claim"
      "Neutral/Unclear": "The perspective doesn't clearly support or oppose"

  # Step 2: Relevance
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: relevance
    description: "How relevant is this perspective to the claim?"
    labels:
      - "Highly relevant"
      - "Somewhat relevant"
      - "Barely relevant"
      - "Not relevant"
    tooltips:
      "Highly relevant": "Directly addresses the core of the claim"
      "Somewhat relevant": "Related but not central to the claim"
      "Barely relevant": "Only tangentially related"
      "Not relevant": "Not related to the claim at all"

  # Step 3: Perspective strength
  - annotation_type: likert
    name: strength
    description: "How strong/convincing is this perspective?"
    min_value: 1
    max_value: 5
    labels:
      1: "Very weak"
      2: "Weak"
      3: "Moderate"
      4: "Strong"
      5: "Very strong"
    tooltips:
      1: "Unconvincing or poorly reasoned"
      2: "Has some merit but not compelling"
      3: "Reasonable argument"
      4: "Compelling argument"
      5: "Highly convincing argument"

  # Step 4: Confidence
  - annotation_type: likert
    name: confidence
    description: "How confident are you in your annotation?"
    min_value: 1
    max_value: 5
    labels:
      1: "Very uncertain"
      2: "Somewhat uncertain"
      3: "Moderately confident"
      4: "Confident"
      5: "Very confident"

allow_all_users: true
instances_per_annotator: 50
annotation_per_instance: 3
allow_skip: true
skip_reason_required: false