Understanding the ways in which participants in public discussions frame their arguments is important in understanding how public opinion is formed. In this paper, we adopt the position that it is time for more computationally-oriented research on problems involving framing. In the interests of furthering that goal, we propose the following specific, interesting and, we believe, relatively accessible question: In the controversy regarding the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, do pro- and anti-GMO articles differ in whether they choose to adopt a "scientific" tone? Prior work on the rhetoric and sociology of science suggests that hedging may distinguish popular-science text from text written by professional scientists for their colleagues. We propose a detailed approach to studying whether hedge detection can be used to understanding scientific framing in the GMO debates, and provide corpora to facilitate this study. Some of our preliminary analyses suggest that hedges occur less frequently in scientific discourse than in popular text, a finding that contradicts prior assertions in the literature. We hope that our initial work and data will encourage others to pursue this promising line of inquiry.

本文旨在探索科技文本角度的探讨，并提出了一个问题，即在遗传修饰的有机体(GMOs)争议中，支持和反对GMO的文章在选择是否采用“科学”语调时是否不同，并提供语料库进行研究。我们初步的分析表明，避让在科学语境中的使用频率比在流行文本中要低，这与文献中的先前说法相矛盾。希望我们的工作和数据将鼓励他人追求这个有前途的领域。

基因改造辩论中的构架视角下的对冲检测：一篇立场论文