{"id":"W2274220625","doi":"10.1111/raju.12115","title":"An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"National Natural Science Foundation of China","keywords":"Argumentation theory; Credibility; Argument (complex analysis); Set (abstract data type); Matching (statistics); Computer science; Rigour; Reliability (semiconductor); Epistemology; Work (physics); Expert opinion; Boundary-work; Public opinion; Management science; Engineering ethics; Political science; Law; Philosophy; Engineering; Mathematics","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01434913,0.001253802,0.001403845,0.003903219,0.001658263,0.009111553,0.002528565,0.005046506,0.02633435],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05280688,0.001008239,0.001884037,0.001566705,0.001770055,0.007825305,0.007303908,0.002295176,0.004832401],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001578496,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001062332,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001289571,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0009423448,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9896428,0.00595582,0.0013435,0.0007818466,0.001990393,0.000285697],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9663628,0.02871818,0.000805737,0.001356426,0.002058231,0.0006985829],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.001336623,0.0004466628,0.002086741,0.001629658,0.0002828741,0.003817598,0.01027334,0.02399164,0.01129477,0.6397604,0.02569861,0.279381],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004114161,0.0001248426,0.0005305285,0.0006017859,0.0001623323,0.001044511,0.001050673,0.4056115,0.00878747,0.3567089,0.224839,0.0001270254],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"methods","genre_scores_codex":[0.007063644,0.0001866248,0.97184,0.0008345431,0.0001055512,0.000283734,0.0003241382,0.007578176,0.01178352],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2059105,0.0003235165,0.7799805,0.000447927,0.0001329864,0.0006159262,0.001159664,0.001234705,0.01019421],"genre_candidate":"methods","genre_consensus":"methods","teacher_disagreement_score":0.02633435,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08809716,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.06657413016424077,"score_gpt":0.3698759947568834,"score_spread":0.3033018645926426,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}