Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills

Full text

Pdf (1.45 MB)

Source

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law archive
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law table of contents

Melbourne, Australia

Pages: 170 - 179

Year of Publication: 1997

ISBN:0-89791-924-6

Authors

Vincent Aleven	Intelligent Systems Program, Learning Research and Development Center, and School of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Kevin D. Ashley	Intelligent Systems Program, Learning Research and Development Center, and School of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

Sponsors

SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
IAAIL : Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law
UMIACS : U of MD Inst for Advanced Comp Studies
University of Melbourne : University of Melbourne

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 1, Downloads (12 Months): 18, Citation Count: 7

Additional Information:

references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/261618.261650 What is a DOI?

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Vincent Aleven , Kevin D. Ashley, How Different Is Different? Arguing About the Significance of Similarities and Differences, Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, p.1-15, November 14-16, 1996
	2	Vincent Aleven , Kevin D. Ashley, Doing things with factors, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.31-41, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222106]
	3	Kevin D. Ashley, Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991
	4	Donald H. Berman , Carole D. Hafner, Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.50-59, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.158982]
	5	L. Karl Branting, Building explanations from rules and structured cases, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.34 n.6, p.797-837, June 1991 [doi>10.1016/0020-7373(91)90012-V]
	6	Muntj~wcrff, A. J., 1994. Towards Automated Training of Legal Problem Solving. In Proceedings of Ed-Media 94: Worm Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, edited by T. Ottman and I. Tomek, 410-.415.
	7	Edwina L. Rissland , David B. Skalak, CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.34 n.6, p.839-887, June 1991 [doi>10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-W]
	8	Rissland, B. L., Skalak, D. B., and M. T. Friedman, 1996. BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments through Case-Based Search. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4: 1-71.
	9	Routen, T., 1992. Reusing Fotmalisations of Legislation in a Tutoring System. Artt~cial Intelligence Review, 6: 145--159.
	10	D. M. Sherman, Expert systems and ICAI in tax law: killing two birds with one AI stone, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.74-80, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74025]
	11	Georges Span, LITES, an intelligent tutoring system for legal problem solving in the domain of Dutch Civil law, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.76-81, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.158986]
	12	Etienne Wenger, Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: computational and cognitive approaches to the communication of knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1987

CITED BY 7

	Carlos Iván Chesñevar , Ana Gabriela Maguitman , Ronald Prescott Loui, Logical models of argument, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.32 n.4, p.337-383, Dec. 2000
	Stefanie Brüninghaus , Kevin D. Ashley, Toward adding knowledge to learning algorithms for indexing legal cases, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.9-17, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway
	Vincent Aleven, Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: a computational model and an intelligent learning environment, Artificial Intelligence, v.150 n.1-2, p.183-237, November 2003
	L. Karl Branting, A reduction-graph model of precedent in legal analysis, Artificial Intelligence, v.150 n.1-2, p.59-95, November 2003
	Andrew Stranieri , John Zeleznikow, The evaluation of legal knowledge based systems, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.18-24, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway
	Ephraim Nissan, Goals, arguments, and deception: A formal representation from the Aurangzeb project. I: An episode from the succession war, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems: Applications in Engineering and Technology, v.18 n.3, p.281-306, August 2007
	Saher Esmeir , Shaul Markovitch, When a decision tree learner has plenty of time, proceedings of the 21st national conference on Artificial intelligence, p.1597-1600, July 16-20, 2006, Boston, Massachusetts