Towards Argumentation for Statistical Model Selection

نویسندگان

  • Isabel Sassoon
  • Jeroen Keppens
  • Peter McBurney
چکیده

The increase in routine clinical data collection coupled with an expectation to exploit this in support of evidence based decision making creates the requirement for a system to support clinicians in this analysis. This paper looks at applying argumentation to this problem, by collating all the relevant statistical approaches and their assumptions into a statistical knowledge base and then representing the model selection process through argumentation. This will form the foundation for the development of a prototype that will enable clinicians to answer their research questions with no statistics, informatics or administrative support.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Towards Formalising Agent Argumentation over the Viability of Human Organs for Transplantation

In this paper we describe a human organ selection process in which agents argue over whether a given donor’s organ is viable for transplantation. This process is framed in the CARREL System; an agent-based organization designed to improve the overall transplant process. We formalize an argumentation based framework that enables CARREL agents to construct and assess arguments for and against the...

متن کامل

The Impact of Structured Discussion on Students' Attitudes and Dispositions toward Argumentation

Argumentation skills are highly valued in both education and business. As a process, participating in argumentation helps a person to develop their meta-cognitive and higher-order thinking abilities. This paper reports on empirical results on middle-school students’ changes in attitudes towards argumentation as part of an ongoing design-based research study. Past attempts by researchers to fost...

متن کامل

A Computer-based Argumentation Framework for Supporting Short-term Virtual Communities of Practice

The paper presents a web-based IS framework for supporting short-term virtual communities of practice formed to resolve specific organizational problems. The proposed framework is based on the G-MoBSA (Group Model Building and Selection by Argumentation) methodology which facilitates issue resolution, leverages group problem-solving capability and enhances organizational knowledge creation thro...

متن کامل

Assumption-Based Argumentation for Decision-Making with Preferences: A Medical Case Study

We present a formal decision-making framework, where decisions have multiple attributes and meet goals, and preferences are defined over individual goals and sets of goals. We define decision functions to select ‘good’ decisions according to an underlying decision criteria. We also define an argumentation-based computational mechanism to compute and explain ‘good’ decisions. We draw connections...

متن کامل

The Effect of Dynamic Assessment of Toulmin Model through Teacher- and Collective-Scaffolding on Argument Structure and Argumentative Writing Achievement of Iranian EFL Learners

Considering the paramount importance of writing logical arguments for college students, this study investigated the effect of dynamic assessment (DA) of Toulmin model through teacher- and collective-scaffolding on argument structure and overall quality of argumentative essays of Iranian EFL university learners. In so doing, 45 male and female Iranian EFL learners taking part in the study were r...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2014