Collin Lynch
ABSTRACT
The development of graphical argument models is an active and growing area of research in Artificial Intelligence and Law. The aim is to develop models which may be readily used by legal professionals and novices to produce and parse arguments. If this goal is to be realized it is important to develop models that human reasoners can manipulate and assess consistently. We report on an ongoing study of graph agreement in the context of the LARGO system.
- K. Ashley, C. Lynch, N. Pinkwart, and V. Aleven. A process model of legal argument with hypotheticals. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Proc. Jurix 2008: 21st Annual Conf., pages 1--10, 2008. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- C. Carr. Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In Visualizing Argumentation, pages 75--96. London, Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1): 37--46, 1960.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Easterday, V. Aleven, and R. Scheines. 'tis better to construct than to receive? the effects of diagramming tools on causal reasoning. In R. Luckin, K. Koedinger, and J. Greer, editors, Proc. of the 13
th International Conference on AI in Education, pages 93--100. Amsterdam, IOS Press., 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171: 875--896, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Landis and G. G. Koch. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics., 33: 159--174, 1977.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Lund, G. Molinari, A. Sjourn, and M. Baker. How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(273).Google Scholar
- J. McClure, B. Sonak, and H. K. Suen. Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4): 475--492, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Pinkwart, V. Aleven, K. Ashley, and C. Lynch. Evaluating legal argument instruction with graphical representations using largo. In Proc. AIED2007. Marina Del Rey, CA., July 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton. Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proc. 10 Intl Conf. AI and Law. ACM Press., 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Reed and G. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int. Journal of AI Tools, 13(4): 961--980, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. D. Suthers and C. D. Hundhausen. Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, and K. Hakkarainen, editors, European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Proc. of the 1st European Conference on CSCL., pages 577--584. Maastricht, the Netherlands., 2001.Google Scholar
- T. van Gelder. The rationale for rational. Law, Probability and Risk: Special Issue on Graphic and Visual Representations of Evidence and Inference in Legal Settings., 6(1--4): 23--42, 2007.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Toward assessing law students' argument diagrams
Recommendations
Learning by diagramming Supreme Court oral arguments
ICAIL '07: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and lawThis paper describes an intelligent tutoring system, LARGO, that helps students learn skills of legal reasoning with hypotheticals by analyzing oral arguments before the US Supreme Court. The skills involve proposing a rule-like test for deciding a case,...
Teaching a process model of legal argument with hypotheticals
The research described here explores the idea of using Supreme Court oral arguments as pedagogical examples in first year classes to help students learn the role of hypothetical reasoning in law. The article presents examples of patterns of reasoning ...
A Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual ConferenceThis paper presents a process model of arguing with hypotheticals and uses it to explain examples of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court that are like those employed in Socratic law teaching. The process model has been partially implemented in ...
Comments