Skip to content
← Back to explorer

DEBISS: a Corpus of Individual, Semi-structured and Spoken Debates

Klaywert Danillo Ferreira de Souza, David Eduardo Pereira, Cláudio E. C. Campelo, Larissa Lucena Vasconcelos · Mar 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 5, 2026, 6:30 PM

Fresh

Extraction refreshed

Mar 7, 2026, 2:47 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks. The range of uses for debates is broad. Due to the diverse applications, structures, and formats of debates, developing corpora that account for these variations can be challenging, and the scarcity of debate corpora in the state of the art is notable. For this reason, the current research proposes the DEBISS corpus: a collection of spoken and individual debates with semi-structured features. With a broad range of NLP task annotations, such as speech-to-text, speaker diarization, argument mining, and debater quality assessment.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
  • No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Runtime deterministic fallback

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.15
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks. HFEPX protocol signal is limited in abstract-level metadata, so treat it as adjacent context. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 7, 2026, 2:47 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on…
  • The range of uses for debates is broad.
  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • The process of debating is essential in our daily lives, whether in studying, work activities, simple everyday discussions, political debates on TV, or online discussions on social networks.
  • The range of uses for debates is broad.
  • Due to the diverse applications, structures, and formats of debates, developing corpora that account for these variations can be challenging, and the scarcity of debate corpora in the state of the art is notable.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote