CompArg: Comparative Sentences 2019 dataset for comparative argument mining is composed of sentences annotated with BETTER / WORSE markers (the first object is better / worse than the second object) or NONE (the sentence does not contain a comparison of the target objects). The BETTER sentences stand for a pro-argument in favor of the first compared object and WORSE-sentences represent a con-argument and favor the second object.

19 page typed manuscript. -- Draft prepared by Capell. Part IV Malekula Comparative Grammar. Foreward and sound laws of Malekula.; Date of recording unknown.. Language as given: Malekula

Sample sentences from CompSent-19 dataset [9], with preference indications. Note: Sequence matters—preferences reference the initial entity in comparison to the subsequent one.

Context

Finding useful information from 30,000 papers is a hard task. Understanding information from all those papers takes time. With advanced AI methods, we can find and extract similar patterns from text data. This method uses advanced AI to find patterns in an unsupervised way. This will be equal to comparing all the sentences with every other sentence in brute-force method.

How this is different from other AI methods

This method goes beyond sentence level co-occurrence pattern finding. As it compares each sentence with other sentences, similar or comparable patterns between the sentences are extracted rather than co-occurrence patterns by other methods.

As it compares the concepts and patterns not the words, hidden but related words or phrases can be found easily. In other words, it goes beyond keyword search to bring all the related sentences in one place. This also reduces the reading requirement.

Content

This dataset creates similar sentences from unsupervised learning methods thus it extracts all the similar sentences which are nearly similar. It has some noise data which may not useful because it is fully unsupervised method.

Data is cleaned, stopwords removed and only English language papers were considered. Final result is 4.5 million sentences. These were processed to find relevant clusters of sentences with desired similarity.

One example is given below.

For full text of the paper, please refer to https://www.kaggle.com/allen-institute-for-ai/CORD-19-research-challenge data.

title : Antimicrobial treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis Executive Summary SINUS AND ALLERGY HEALTH PARTNERSHIP* paper id : 32d8d8a2e5e0a499c98a53c9f71a22469752247e line : Antibiotics can be placed into the following relative rank order of predicted clinical efficacy for adults: 90% to 92% ch respiratory fluoroquinolones (gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin), ceftriaxone, high-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate (4 g/250 mg/day), and amoxicillin/clavulanate (1.75 g/250 mg/day); 83% to 88% ch high-dose amoxicillin (4 g/day), amoxicillin (1.5 g/day), cefpodoxime proxetil, cefixime (based on H influenzae and M catarrhalis coverage), cefuroxime axetil, cefdinir, and TMP/SMX; 77% to 81% ch doxycycline, clindamycin (based on gram-positive coverage only), azithromycin, clarithromycin and erythromycin, and telithromycin; 65% to 66% ch cefaclor and loracarbef.

title : Antimicrobial treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis Executive Summary SINUS AND ALLERGY HEALTH PARTNERSHIP* paper id : 32d8d8a2e5e0a499c98a53c9f71a22469752247e line : Antibiotics can be placed into the following relative rank order of predicted clinical efficacy in children with ABRS: 91% to 92% ch ceftriaxone, high-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate (90 mg/6.4 mg per kg per day) and amoxicillin/clavulanate (45 mg/6.4 mg per kg per day); 82% to 87% ch highdose amoxicillin (90 mg/kg per day), amoxicillin (45 mg/kg per day), cefpodoxime proxetil, cefixime (based on H influenzae and M catarrhalis coverage only), cefuroxime axetil, cefdinir, and TMP/SMX; and 78% to 80% ch clindamycin (based on gram-positive coverage only), cefprozil, azithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin; 67% to 68% ch cefaclor and loracarbef.

title : Antimicrobial treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis Executive Summary SINUS AND ALLERGY HEALTH PARTNERSHIP* paper id : 32d8d8a2e5e0a499c98a53c9f71a22469752247e line : Recommendations for initial therapy for adult patients with mild disease (who have not received antibiotics in the previous 4 to 6 weeks) include the following choices: amoxicillin/clavulanate (1.75 to 4 g/250 mg per day), amoxicillin (1.5 to 4 g/day), cefpodoxime proxetil, cefuroxime axetil, or cefdinir.

title : Antimicrobial treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis Executive Summary SINUS AND ALLERGY HEALTH PARTNERSHIP* paper id : 32d8d8a2e5e0a499c98a53c9f71a22469752247e line : Recommendations for initial therapy for children with mild disease and who have not received antibiotics in the previous 4 to 6 weeks include the following: high-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate (90 mg/6.4 mg per kg per day), amoxicillin (90 mg/kg per day), cefpodoxime proxetil, cefuroxime axetil, or cefdinir.

title : Antimicrobial treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis Executive Summary SINUS AND ALLERGY HEALTH PARTNERSHIP* paper id : 32d8d8a2e5e0a499c98a53c9f71a22469752247e line : The relative antimicrobial activity against isolates of S pneumoniae based on PK/PD breakpoints, 89 can be listed as: gatifloxacin / levofloxacin / moxifloxacin ([?]99%); ceftriaxone / high-dose amoxicillin (Ti clavulanate [extended-release or extra strength]) (95% to 97%); amoxicillin (Ti clavulanate) / clindamycin (90% to 92%) ; cefpodoxime proxetil /cefuroxime axetil / cefdinir /erythromycin /cla...

The extraction of subjective comparative relations is essential in the field of question answering systems, playing a crucial role in accurately interpreting and addressing complex questions. To tackle this challenge, we propose the SCQRE model, specifically designed to extract subjective comparative relations from questions by focusing on entities, aspects, constraints, and preferences. Our approach leverages multi-task learning, the Natural Language Inference (NLI) paradigm, and a specialized adapter integrated into RoBERTa_base_go_emotions to enhance performance in Element Extraction (EE), Compared Elements Identification (CEI), and Comparative Preference Classification (CPC). Key innovations include handling X- and XOR-type preferences, capturing implicit comparative nuances, and the robust extraction of constraints often neglected in existing models. We also introduce the Smartphone-SCQRE dataset, along with another domain-specific dataset, Brands-CompSent-19-SCQRE, both structured as subjective comparative questions. Experimental results demonstrate that our model outperforms existing approaches across multiple question-level and sentence-level datasets and surpasses recent language models, such as GPT-3.5-turbo-0613, Llama-2-70b-chat, and Qwen-1.5-7B-Chat, showcasing its effectiveness in question-based comparative relation extraction.

Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy of an explicit, combined metalinguistic training and grammar facilitation intervention aimed at improving regular past tense marking for nine children aged 5;10–6;8 (years;months) with developmental language disorder.Method: This study used an ABA across-participant multiple-baseline single-case experimental design. Participants were seen one-on-one twice a week for 20- to 30-min sessions for 10 weeks and received explicit grammar intervention combining metalinguistic training using the SHAPE CODING system with grammar facilitation techniques (a systematic cueing hierarchy). In each session, 50 trials to produce the target form were completed, resulting in a total of 1,000 trials over 20 individual therapy sessions. Repeated measures of morphosyntax were collected using probes, including trained past tense verbs, untrained past tense verbs, third-person singular verbs as an extension probe, and possessive ’s as a control probe. Probing contexts included expressive morphosyntax and grammaticality judgment. Outcome measures also included pre–poststandard measures of expressive and receptive grammar.Results: Analyses of repeated measures demonstrated significant improvement in past tense production on trained verbs (eight of nine children) and untrained verbs (seven of nine children), indicating efficacy of the treatment. These gains were maintained for 5 weeks. The majority of children made significant improvement on standardized measures of expressive grammar (eight of nine children). Only five of nine children improved on grammaticality judgment or receptive measures.Conclusion: Results continue to support the efficacy of explicit grammar interventions to improve past tense marking in early school-aged children. Future research should aim to evaluate the efficacy of similar interventions with group comparison studies and determine whether explicit grammar interventions can improve other aspects of grammatical difficulty for early school-aged children with developmental language disorder.Supplemental Materials:S1. Expressive raw scores of participants on trained past tense verbs within-session.S2. Expressive raw scores of participants on trained past tense verbs between-session.S3. Expressive raw scores of participants on untrained past tense verbs.S4. Expressive scores of participants on third-person singular (extension).S5. Summary of Tau-U analyses for expressive repeated measures baseline versus treatment phase contrasts on untrained third-person singular targets (extension).S6. Graph of % correct on expressive third-person singular repeated measures (extension).S7. Expressive raw scores of participants on possessive ’s (control).S8. Summary of expressive repeated measures baseline versus treatment phase contrasts on untrained possessive ’s targets (control).S9. Graph of % correct on expressive possessive ’s repeated measures (control).S10. Grammaticality judgment raw scores of participants on trained past tense verbs within session.S11. Grammaticality judgment raw scores of participants on trained past tense verbs between-session.S12. Grammaticality judgment raw scores of participants on untrained past tense verbs.S13. Summary of grammaticality judgment repeated measures baseline versus treatment phase contrasts on trained and untrained targets.S14. Graph of % correct on grammaticality judgment within-session repeated measures.S15. Graph of % correct on grammaticality judgment between-session repeated measures.S16. Graph of % correct on expressive untrained repeated measures.S17. Grammaticality judgment raw scores of participants on third-person singular (extension).S18. Summary grammaticality judgment repeated measures baseline versus treatment phase contrasts on untrained third-person singular targets (extension).S19. Graph of % correct on grammaticality judgment third-person singular repeated measures (extension).S20. Grammaticality judgment raw scores of participants on possessive ’s (control).S21. Summary of grammaticality judgment repeated measures baseline versus treatment phase contrasts on untrained possessive ’s targets (control).S22. Graph of % correct on grammaticality judgment possessive ’s repeated measures (control).Calder, S. D., Claessen, M., Ebbels, S., & Leitão, S. (2020). Explicit grammar intervention in young school-aged children with developmental language disorder: An efficacy study using single-case experimental design. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(2), 298-316. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00060 Publisher Note: This article is part of the Forum: Morphosyntax Assessment and Intervention for Children.

The aim of the study was to identify which of the two German verbs sich benehmen or sich verhalten is the best comparison to the copula. The study had only two conditions based on the type of verb used with the adjective (sich verhalten vs. sich benehmen). The 345 adjectives were extracted from a random sample of 2000 examples the DeReKo T-tagged corpus using the online interface Cosmas II.

The participants were seated in a computer pool in front of a computer and asked to read short sentences and asked to rate their acceptability on a scale of 1 (very unnatural) to 7 (very natural). They were asked to read naturally and answer as quickly as possible. The experiment was preceeded by an exercise with 4 sentences (2 natural and 2 unnatural ones). Every list started with 3 filler items. The items were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups and distributed over two respective lists via the Latin square design. The resulting 172 per list were supplemented by 546 fillers. The resulting 4 lists were presented in a pseudorandomized order so that there were at least three fillers between two items. The lists were counterballanced.

40 native speakers of German, aged 19 to 44 (mean age 26.82, sd=5.36) participated in the experiment. 31 were women, 36 were right-handed and 34 were monolingual German native speakers. Participants came from Rheinland-Pfalz, Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Niedersachsen, Sachsen, Thüringen, Hessen, Nordrhein Westfalen, Bayern, Schleswig-Holstein. The experiment took 55 minutes on average. As compensation, the participants had a chance to win one of 12 Amazon-vouchers for 15 EUR each.

This scientific article comparatively analyzes the classical Arabic grammar schools (traditional Arabic grammar) that formed in the 7th–10th centuries and the modern linguistics (structuralism, generative grammar, functional syntax) methods that emerged in the West in the 19th–21st centuries. The study compares the "amil theory" (governance theory), al-asl and al-far’ (deep and surface structure), and the relationship between form and meaning, which form the foundation of traditional Arabic linguistics, with modern linguistic paradigms.