{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031569173630454965, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002785515320334262, 'mean_word_length': 5.573170731707317, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Argumentation Map Generation with Conceptual Graphs: the Case for ESSENCE

Argumentation maps are visual representations of argumentation structures, making it possible to efficiently examine the cumulative results of protracted, distributed, and complex argumentation processes. Such visualizations can be useful to, for example, informally assess the status of public debates. Although the elicitation of argumentation maps is well supported, the support for the (1) analysis, (2) comparison, and (3) generation of maps relevant to particular stakeholders is still an open research problem. To develop such services, conceptual graph theory and tools can prove to be very useful.We analyze the argumentation needs of the ESSENCE (E-Science/Sensemaking/Climate Change) project, which aims to create useful argument maps to assess the current state of the global debate on climate change. We outline a public investigator service, which would allow policy makers, journalists, etc. to quickly zoom in on only those stakeholders, positions, and arguments they are interested in.