Explore the vast range of titles available.

Various k-special functions such as k-gamma function, k-beta function and k-hypergeometric functions have been introduced and investigated. Recently, the k-gamma function of a matrix argument and k-beta function of matrix arguments have been presented and studied. In this paper, we aim to introduce an extended k-gamma function of a matrix argument and an extended k-beta function of matrix arguments and investigate some of their properties such as functional relations, inequality, integral formula, and integral representations. Also an application of the extended k-beta function of matrix arguments to statistics is considered.

Argument schemes are abstractions substantiating the inferential connection between premise(s) and conclusion in argumentative communication. Identifying such conventional patterns of reasoning is essential to the interpretation and evaluation of argumentation. Whether studying argumentation from a theory-driven or data-driven perspective, insight into the actual use of argumentation in communicative practice is essential. Large and reliably annotated corpora of argumentative discourse to quantitatively provide such insight are few and far between. This is all the more true for argument scheme corpora, which tend to suffer from a combination of limited size, poor validation, and the use of ad hoc restricted typologies. In the current paper, we describe the annotation of schemes on the basis of two distinct classifications: Walton’s taxonomy of argument schemes, and Wagemans’ Periodic Table of Arguments. We describe the annotation procedure for each, and the quantitative characteristics of the resulting annotated text corpora. In doing so, we extend the annotation of the preexisting US2016 corpus of televised election debates, resulting in, to the best of our knowledge, the two largest consistently annotated corpora of schemes in argumentative dialogue publicly available. Based on evaluation in terms of inter-annotator agreement, we propose further improvements to the guidelines for annotating schemes: the argument scheme key, and the Argument Type Identification Procedure.

Background Data from subjective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now being used in the health sector to make or support decisions about individuals, groups and populations. Contemporary validity theorists define validity not as a statistical property of the test but as the extent to which empirical evidence supports the interpretation of test scores for an intended use. However, validity testing theory and methodology are rarely evident in the PROM validation literature. Application of this theory and methodology would provide structure for comprehensive validation planning to support improved PROM development and sound arguments for the validity of PROM score interpretation and use in each new context. Objective This paper proposes the application of contemporary validity theory and methodology to PROM validity testing. Illustrative example The validity testing principles will be applied to a hypothetical case study with a focus on the interpretation and use of scores from a translated PROM that measures health literacy (the Health Literacy Questionnaire or HLQ). Discussion Although robust psychometric properties of a PROM are a pre-condition to its use, a PROM's validity lies in the sound argument that a network of empirical evidence supports the intended interpretation and use of PROM scores for decision making in a particular context. The health sector is yet to apply contemporary theory and methodology to PROM development and validation. The theoretical and methodological processes in this paper are offered as an advancement of the theory and practice of PROM validity testing in the health sector.

During the last decade, one source of debate in argumentation theory has been the notion that there are different modes of arguing that need to be distinguished when analyzing and evaluating arguments. Visual argument is often cited as a paradigm example. This paper discusses the ways in which it and modes of arguing that invoke non-verbal sounds, smells, tactile sensations, music and other non-verbal entities may be defined and conceptualized. Though some attempts to construct a ‘multimodal’ theory of argument are criticized, it advocates for an argumentation theory that makes room for visual arguing and for other non-verbal modes that have not been explored in depth. In the process, the paper provides a method for identifying the structure of multimodal arguments and argues that adding modes to our theoretical tool box is an important step toward a comprehensive account of argument.

Representing an event in abstract (vs. concrete) terms and as happening in the distant (vs. proximal) future has been shown to have important consequences for cognition and motivation. Less is known about factors that influence construal level and perceived temporal distance. The present research identifies one such factor and explores the implications for persuasion. Four studies show that an independent self-view is associated with abstract representations of future events and with perceiving these events as happening in the more distant future, whereas an interdependent self-view is associated with concrete representations of future events and with perceiving these events as happening in the more proximal future. Furthermore, a match (vs. mismatch) between the temporal frame of an advertisement and the self-view of the recipient leads to systematic changes in advertisement effectiveness and product appeal. These results add to the construal level theory and the self literatures and have practical implications for advertisers.

This article contrasts narrative self‐referencing with analytical self‐referencing. I propose that narrative self‐referencing persuades through transportation, where people become absorbed in a story—in this case, in their storylike thoughts (Green and Brock2000). When ad viewers are transported by these narrative thoughts, persuasion is not negatively affected by weak ad arguments. Conversely, analytical self‐referencing persuades via more traditional processing models, wherein cognitive elaboration is enhanced by relating incoming information to one’s self or personal experiences, which results in a differential persuasive effect of strong versus weak arguments. I also propose that ad skepticism moderates the effect of narrative transportation. My assertions are tested in two experiments in the context of mental simulation as a form of narrative self‐referencing.

We propose a model of motivated skepticism that helps explain when and why citizens are biased-information processors. Two experimental studies explore how citizens evaluate arguments about affirmative action and gun control, finding strong evidence of a prior attitude effect such that attitudinally congruent arguments are evaluated as stronger than attitudinally incongruent arguments. When reading pro and con arguments, participants (Ps) counterargue the contrary arguments and uncritically accept supporting arguments, evidence of a disconfirmation bias. We also find a confirmation bias-the seeking out of confirmatory evidence-when Ps are free to self-select the source of the arguments they read. Both the confirmation and disconfirmation biases lead to attitude polarization-the strengthening of t2over t1attitudes-especially among those with the strongest priors and highest levels of political sophistication. We conclude with a discussion of the normative implications of these findings for rational behavior in a democracy.

In recent years, academics and educators have begun to use software mapping tools for a number of education-related purposes. Typically, the tools are used to help impart critical and analytical skills to students, to enable students to see relationships between concepts, and also as a method of assessment. The common feature of all these tools is the use of diagrammatic relationships of various kinds in preference to written or verbal descriptions. Pictures and structured diagrams are thought to be more comprehensible than just words, and a clearer way to illustrate understanding of complex topics. Variants of these tools are available under different names: \"concept mapping\", \"mind mapping\" and \"argument mapping\". Sometimes these terms are used synonymously. However, as this paper will demonstrate, there are clear differences in each of these mapping tools. This paper offers an outline of the various types of tool available and their advantages and disadvantages. It argues that the choice of mapping tool largely depends on the purpose or aim for which the tool is used and that the tools may well be converging to offer educators as yet unrealised and potentially complementary functions (HRK / Abstract übernommen).