[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/2514601.2514640acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Argumentation based tools for policy-making

Published: 10 June 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Citizens have a variety of ways to consult with their representatives about policy proposals, seeking justifications, objecting to all or part of it, or making a counter-proposal. For the first, the representative needs only to state a justification. For the second, the representative would want to understand the objections, which may involve asking some questions. For the third, the citizen would have to provide a well formulated proposal that can then be critiqued from the standpoint of the government's own policy proposal. At the end of such a consultation, users will have aired their proposals, understood the implications, and received feedback on how their proposals contrast to that of the government.

References

[1]
K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, D. Cartwright, and A. Wyner. Semantic models for policy deliberation. In Proceedings of ICAIL 2011, pages 81--90, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2011.
[2]
K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and A. Wyner. Opinion gathering using a multi-agent systems approach to policy selection. In Proceedings of AAMAS 2012, pages 1171--1172, Valencia, Spain, June 2012.
[3]
K. Atkinson and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15):855--874, 2007.
[4]
D. Walton, C. Reed, and F. Macagno. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
[5]
A. Wyner, K. Atkinson, and T. Bench-Capon. Model based critique of policy proposals. In Proceedings of ePart 2012, pages 120--131, 2012.

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Argumentation schemes in AI and LawArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-200543(1-18)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2021
  • (2021)Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a surveyThe Knowledge Engineering Review10.1017/S026988892100001136Online publication date: 5-Apr-2021
  • (2019)Demonstrating the Distinctions Between Persuasion and Deliberation DialoguesArtificial Intelligence XXXVI10.1007/978-3-030-34885-4_7(93-106)Online publication date: 19-Nov-2019
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICAIL '13: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 2013
277 pages
ISBN:9781450320801
DOI:10.1145/2514601
  • Conference Chair:
  • Enrico Francesconi,
  • Program Chair:
  • Bart Verheij

Sponsors

  • ITTIG-CNR: Istituto di Teoria e Tecniche dell'Informazione Giuridica - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
  • IAAIL: Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 June 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ICAIL '13
Sponsor:
  • ITTIG-CNR
  • IAAIL

Acceptance Rates

ICAIL '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 17 of 53 submissions, 32%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Argumentation schemes in AI and LawArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-200543(1-18)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2021
  • (2021)Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a surveyThe Knowledge Engineering Review10.1017/S026988892100001136Online publication date: 5-Apr-2021
  • (2019)Demonstrating the Distinctions Between Persuasion and Deliberation DialoguesArtificial Intelligence XXXVI10.1007/978-3-030-34885-4_7(93-106)Online publication date: 19-Nov-2019
  • (2018)Taking account of the actions of others in value-based reasoningArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2017.09.002254:C(1-20)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018
  • (2018)A new use case for argumentation support tools: supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal casesArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-018-9235-zOnline publication date: 9-Oct-2018
  • (2017)Weighted argumentation for analysis of discussions in TwitterInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2017.02.00485:C(21-35)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
  • (2016)States, goals and values: Revisiting practical reasoningArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-1600117:2-3(135-154)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2016
  • (2016)Value based reasoning and the actions of othersProceedings of the Twenty-second European Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.3233/978-1-61499-672-9-680(680-688)Online publication date: 29-Aug-2016
  • (2016)From Berman and Hafner's teleological context to Baude and Sachs' interpretive defaultsArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-016-9186-124:4(371-385)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016
  • (2015)Formalisation and logical properties of the maximal ideal recursive semantics for weighted defeasible logic programmingJournal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence10.1080/0952813X.2015.102449028:1-2(275-294)Online publication date: 19-May-2015
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media