Note of clarification on Scholten and Sherman (2006): Erratum.

Reports an error in "Tradeoffs and Theory: The Double-Mediation Model" by Marc Scholten and Steven J. Sherman (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2006 May, Vol 135[2], 237-261). This article was inadvertently printed with the incorrect title. The original title was "Tradeoffs and Conflict: The Double-Mediation Model." This title highlights the relation between tradeoffs and conflict as investigated by the authors and accounted for by their model. However, readers are asked to refer to the article by the title with which it was printed to facilitate its retrieval.. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-06642-006.) Most theories of decision making suggest that, when options imply tradeoffs between their attributes, conflict increases as tradeoff size increases, because greater sacrifices are to be incurred in choosing one option instead of another. An alternative view is that conflict decreases as tradeoff size increases, because stronger arguments can be made for any decision. The authors propose a unified model, the double-mediation model, which combines the mediating effects of sacrifice and argumentation. Our model generally predicts an inverse U-shaped relation between tradeoff size and conflict. Results support this prediction. Also, when the decision situation increases the mediating effect of sacrifice relative to that of argumentation, the relation between tradeoff size and conflict changes in an upward direction; conversely, when the decision situation increases the mediating effect of argumentation relative to that of sacrifice, the relation changes in a downward direction. Results support these predictions as well. Commonalities and differences between our model and other formulations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies

Recent research on annotation interfaces provides provocative evidence that anchored, annotation-based discussion environments may lead to better conversations about a text. However, annotation interfaces raise complicated tradeoffs regarding screen real estate and positioning. It is argued that solving this screen real estate problem requires limiting the number of annotations displayed to users. In order to understand which annotations have the most learning value for students, this paper presents two complementary studies examining the effects of annotations on students performing a reading-to-write task. The first study used think-aloud protocols and a within-subjects methodology, finding that annotations appeared to provoke students to reflect more critically upon the primary text. This effect was particularly strong when students encountered pairs of annotations presenting different viewpoints on the same section of text. Student interviews suggested that annotations were most helpful when they caused the reader to consider and weigh conflicting viewpoints. The second study used a between-subjects methodology and a more naturalistic task to provide complementary evidence that annotations encourage more reflective responses to a text. This study found that students who received annotated materials both perceived themselves and were perceived by instructors as less reliant on unreflective summary strategies than students who received the same content but in a different format. These findings indicate that the learning value of an annotation lies in its ability to provoke students to consider and weigh new perspectives on the primary text. When selected effectively, annotations provide a critical scaffolding that can support students’ critical thinking and argumentation activities. Collaborative digital libraries and applications for the Web 2.0 should be designed with this learning framework in mind.     

How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue

In this paper it is shown how tools developed in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence can be applied to the development of a new dialectical analysis of the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. These tools are developed, modified and used to formulate dialogue pre-conditions, defining conditions and post-conditions for the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. The defining conditions set out what is required for a move in a dialogue to count as the making of a proposal by one of the parties. What is required are the conditions that (1) the move fit the requirements of the argumentation scheme for practical reasoning, and (2) the premises are propositions describing common goals of both parties or propositions that they reasonably consider means to achieve these goals. The analysis goes beyond the standard speech act approach by specifying not only the normative requirements for making a well-formed proposal, but also the requirements for responding to it by questioning or criticizing it, and the requirements for defending it.     

Implementation of Web‐based argumentation in facilitating elementary school students to learn environmental issues

This research develops a Web‐based argumentation system named the Web‐based Interactive Argumentation System (WIAS). WIAS can provide teachers with the scaffolding for argumentation instruction. Students can propose their statements, collect supporting evidence and share and discuss with peers online. This research adopts a quasi‐experimental design, applying WIAS to the teaching of environmental issues, including mudslides, global warming and nuclear power. Fifty‐seven elementary school fifth graders from two classes participated in this research. With each class as a unit, they were divided into the WIAS group (n = 30) and the traditional argumentation instruction (TAI) group (n = 27). Before research, all students took the pre‐test of the ‘achievement test for environmental issues (ATEI)’ and the ‘environmental literacy scale (ELS).’ Then all students received argumentation training and six classes of argumentation instruction. Students in the WIAS group performed argumentation in the WIAS, while those in the TAI group performed argumentation in a traditional classroom. After the six‐class argumentation instruction, all students took the post‐test of the ATEI and ELS. The results show that students in the WIAS group have significantly better learning effectiveness than those in the TAI group. Students in the WIAS group also exhibited significantly better improvement in their environmental literacy.     

基于工作流的装备需求论证项目管理系统的设计与实现

针对目前装备需求论证流程缺少科学的方法论指导、缺少规范的管理机制、信息文档不便于整理、装备需求论证各要素之间相互关系复杂且动态多变等问题,基于工作流技术,设计并实现了一套支持装备需求论证的项目管理系统,该系统能够以在线方式辅助装备需求论证人员基于定义好的论证流程开展武器装备的需求论证工作,并提供了论证进度监控等功能,提高了工作效率,安全性高。     

任务级行动序列问题中的定性偏好研究

关注了一类典型行动序列,研究如何在动作集合上存在定性偏好,且偏好集合存在不一致性时开展规划。所考虑的行动序列问题称为任务级COA,以抽象层次的动作为基本要素,所考虑的定性偏好包括静态偏好和时序偏好,所讨论的规划目的是获得最大满意度的COA方案。首先建立了偏好与约束的归一化形式描述,在此基础上形成了COA方案设计算法;进一步,使用计算辩论技术排除偏好集合中的不一致性,形成用户接受度最高的COA方案。文中建立的以定性推理为基础的规划框架,实现了偏好解耦,能够适应不同的领域问题,是以定量计算为基础的传统规划算法的有效补充。通过快速响应卫星成像的COA案例,演示了算法的可行性。     

规划水资源论证技术要求探讨——以深圳石岩总部经济园区规划为例

2010年,水利部启动了规划水资源论证的试点工作并出台了试行技术要求。规划水资源论证把水资源管理的源头从建设项目向前推进至规划阶段,体现了"从源头和过程控制"的理念。以深圳石岩总部经济园区改造专项规划水资源论证为例,对园区规划水资源论证的内容、方法和要求进行了实例探讨,为规划水资源论证的编制提供参考。     

一种研讨模型

提出了一种研讨模型.该模型用简化的Toulmin模型表示争议内部结构,用Dung的抽象辩论框架的方法定义争议之间的关系,给出了争议可防卫性和陈述可接受性算法.用该模型对已有文献中的实例重新建模,结果表明,该模型能够准确计算陈述可接受性并得出研讨结果.该模型研究出发点是对实际群体研讨建模,但也可以用于非经典逻辑形式系统建模.     

A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning

Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities are not fixed, but are themselves defeasibly derived as conclusions within the system. Thus debates on the choice between conflicting arguments can also be modelled.The proof theory of the system is stated in dialectical style, where a proof takes the form of a dialogue between a proponent and an opponent of an argument. An argument is shown to be justified if the proponent can make the opponent run out of moves in whatever way the opponent attacks. Despite this dialectical form, the system reflects a declarative, or relational approach to modelling legal argument. A basic assumption of this paper is that this approach complements two other lines of research in AI and Law, investigations of precedent-based reasoning and the development of procedural, or dialectical models of legal argument.Supported by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and by Esprit WG 8319 Modelage.     

Abstract argumentation

In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the admissibility semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation-theoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation.In the admissibility semantics there is only one way for one argument to attack another, namely by undermining one of its non-provability claims. In this paper, we show how other kinds of attack between arguments, specifically how rebuttal and priority attacks, can be reduced to the undermining of non-provability claims.