Toward legal argument instruction with graph grammars and collaborative filtering techniques

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4053 LNCS, Issue , 2006, Pages 227-236

  Pinkwart, Niels ^a   Aleven, Vincent ^a   Ashley, Kevin ^b   Lynch, Collin ^b  

^a Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATIONAL GRAMMARS; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; GRAPH THEORY; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; STUDENTS;

COLLABORATIVE FILTERING TECHNIQUES; CONNECTIVE FEEDBACK; INTELLIGENT TUTORING; LEGAL ARGUMENTATION;

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK;

EID: 33746332021     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11774303_23     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Aleven, V. 2003. Using Background Knowledge in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: A Computational Model and an Intelligent Learning Environment. Artificial Intelligence 150: 183-238.
2. Ashley, K. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge MA, MIT Press/Bradford Books.
3. Bench-Capon, T., Leng, P., and Staniford, G. 1998. A computer supported environment for the teaching of legal argument. J. of Information, Law & Technology 3
4. Carr, C. 2003. Using Computer Supported Argument Visualization to Teach Legal Argumentation. In Visualizing Argumentation, 75-96. London, Springer.
5. Farzan, R., and Brusilovski, P. 2005. Social Navigation Support through Annotation-Based Group Modeling. In Proc. of UM, 387-391. Berlin, Springer.
6. van Gelder, T. 2002. Argument Mapping with Reasonable. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers 85-90.
7. Konstan, J., and Riedl, J. 2002. Collaborative Filtering: Supporting social navigation in large, crowded infospaces. In Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach, 43-81. Berlin: Springer.
8. Muntjewerff, J., and Breuker, J. 2001. Evaluating PROSA, a system to train solving legal cases. In Proc. of AIED, 278-285. Amsterdam, IOS Press.
9. Paolocci, M., Suthers, D., and Weiner, A. 1996. Automated Advice-Giving Strategies for Scientific Inquiry. In Proc. of ITS, 372 - 381. Berlin, Springer.
10. Pinkwart, N. 2005. Collaborative Modeling in Graph Based Environments. Berlin, dissertation.de Verlag.
11. Reed, C., and Rowe, G. 2004 Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14:961-980.
12. Rekers, J., and Schürr, A. 1997. Defining and parsing visual languages with layered graph grammars. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 8:27-55.
13. Rissland, E. 1989. Dimension-Based Analysis of Hypotheticals from Supreme Court Oral Argument, In Proc. of AI & Law, 111-120. New York, ACM Press.
14. Schworm, S., and Renkl, A. 2002. Learning by solved example problems: Instructional explanations reduce selfexplanation activity. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 816-821. Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Suthers, D., and Hundhausen, C. 2003. An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12:183-218.
16. Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
17. Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150:291-324.
18. Walton, D. 2002. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Penn State Press.