MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209131014

Practical Reasoning: A Modular Approach

2017· article· en· W3209131014 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Walton

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgumentation theoryArgument (complex analysis)Computer scienceModular designGraphArtificial intelligenceArgument mapTheoretical computer scienceEpistemologyCognitive scienceProgramming languagePsychologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present eight argumentation schemes that represent different species of practical reasoning argument, or other arguments that are closely woven in with practical reasoning, each of which can also act as a separate argument on its own. Using two examples, we combine these schemes to show how to build a graph structure in the form of an argument diagram that shows visually how arguments instantiating the schemes fit together to draw an ultimate conclusion from the connected sequence of argumentation. This approach is shown to overcome the limitations of the existing models of practical reasoning within the BDI and commitment theoretical frameworks, providing a useful tool for discourse analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207