@@ -17,9 +17,10 @@ As already mentioned in project_proposal, our goal of the project was to enable
In this project, we followed up on the paper by [Paul&Frank(2019)](https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N19-1368.pdf). While the aforementioned paper worked on narrative texts, we extended this approach to argumentative texts. For this, we used [this](https://github.com/debjitpaul/Multi-Hop-Knowledge-Paths-Human-Needs) approach provided by @DebjitPaul, and adapted it to our project.
## Results and Evaluation
Give examples
#### Annotations and Maslow hierarchy of needs
Our first step in this project, as mentioned earlier, was to manually annotate all essays. Here we noticed that the Maslow categories exclusively represent human needs. However, we also found some essays that were not about humans, but about the needs of other living or non-living beings. For our project we decided to extend Maslow's motives to other, non-human existences. <br> In principle however we would find a revised, more existence-needs integrating pyramid meaningful. Above all in today's time, where animal protection, nature protection etc. are large important topics, which also is much written and reported about, it is important that these needs are filtered out and included. <br>**The only question left when revising the Maslow pyramind is: would one like to regard e.g. the animal protection as human need - thus as need of humans to protect the environment or as the need of the animal to live?**
<br>
Another observation we made during our annotation was that the Maslow and Reiss categories are not so simple and not clearly assignable. Already during the annotation we all noticed that often more than one category is applicable. While we decided on the basis of our gut feeling what was most applicable for us, we realized already when comparing with the others that in some examples we had even assigned four different needs. And each one fit in its own way. Then, when we used Fleiss Kappa to calculate our inter-annotator agreement, we found that we came up with an agreement of about 0.7 for Maslow and 0.4 for Reiss. This result made it clear that even if we interpreted the human needs behind an essay in the same way, it would be difficult to agree on the Reiss motives, which are even more concrete than the Maslow motives. Which motives one suspects behind a text written by someone else depends too much on the person reading it and his personal feelings.
