The task of recommending relevant scientific literature for a draft academic paper has recently received significant interest. In our effort to ease the discovery of scientific literature and augment scientific writing, we aim to improve the relevance of results based on a shallow semantic analysis of the source document and the potential documents to recommend. We investigate the utility of automatic argumentative and rhetorical annotation of documents for this purpose. Specifically, we integrate automatic Core Scientific Concepts (CoreSC) classification into a prototype context-based citation recommendation system and investigate its usefulness to the task. We frame citation recommendation as an information retrieval task and we use the categories of the annotation schemes to apply different weights to the similarity formula. Our results show interesting and consistent correlations between the type of citation and the type of sentence containing the relevant information.

This work investigates how automated methods can be used to classify social media text into argumentation types. In particular it is shown how supervised machine learning was used to annotate a Twitter dataset (London Riots) with argumentation classes. An investigation of issues arising from a natural inconsistency within social media data found that machine learning algorithms tend to over fit to the data because Twitter contains a lot of repetition in the form of retweets. It is also noted that when learning argumentation classes we must be aware that the classes will most likely be of very different sizes and this must be kept in mind when analysing the results. Encouraging results were found in adapting a model from one domain of Twitter data (London Riots) to another (OR2012). When adapting a model to another dataset the most useful feature was punctuation. It is probable that the nature of punctuation in Twitter language, the very specific use in links, indicates argumentation class.