Titlebook: Reasoning with Rules and Precedents; A Computational Mode L. Karl Branting Book 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000 argumen

帶來

罵人有污點

Evaluation,em. The quality of an analysis is evaluated by determining the extent to which the analysis identifies the relevant issues, determines the legal authorities applicable to those issues, and constructs sound and persuasive arguments based on those authorities. The second aspect of a legal-analysis sys

fatty-streak

Related Work,ts are viewed as mutually supporting warrants. Under this approach, precedents can compensate for inadequate reduction rules, while rules can improve matching through case elaboration and goal reformulation.

內(nèi)閣

Research Contributions,sed in the construction of GREBE, a system for legal analysis in the domain of Texas worker’s compensation law. The research contributions of the GREBE approach and various avenues of future research suggested by the experience of developing GREBE are summarized in this chapter.

FOLLY

separate

A Framework for Integrating Rules and Exemplars,a bridge between abstract features and case descriptions. However, matching new cases with exemplars usually requires general domain rules. Thus, rules and exemplars are mutually supporting in weak-theory domains.

bizarre

Cpap155

Evaluation,rities applicable to those issues, and constructs sound and persuasive arguments based on those authorities. The second aspect of a legal-analysis system that can be evaluated is the efficiency of the system, that is, the computational resources necessary to produce an analysis.

overbearing

SPALL

s in which experience is so extensive that every new problemprecisely matches a previous problem whose solution is known. Whenneither rules nor examples are individually sufficient,problem-solving expertise depends on integrating both. This bookpresents a computational framework for the integration