Mixed-Initiative Argumentation: Group Decision Support in Medicine
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper identifies ways in which traditional approaches to argumentation can be modified to meet the needs of practical group decision support. Three specific modifications are proposed. Firstly, a framework for accrual-based argumentation is presented. Second, a framework for outcome-driven decision rationale management is proposed that permits a novel conception of mixed-initiative argumentation. The framework is evaluated in the context of group decision support in medicine.
منابع مشابه
Mixed-Initiative Argumentation: A Framework for Justification Management in Clinical Group Decision Support
This paper identifies ways in which traditional approaches to argumentation can be modified to meet the needs of practical group decision support. A framework for outcome-driven decision rationale management is proposed that permits a novel conception of mixed-initiative argumentation. The framework is evaluated in the context of group decision support in medicine.
متن کاملArgumentation and multi-agent decision making
This paper summarises our on going work on mixed initiative decision making which extends both classical decision theory and a symbolic theory of decision mak ing based on argumentation to a multi agent domain
متن کاملA Semantic Enhanced Framework for Argumentation Based Group Decision Support
By an effective Group Decision Support System (GDSS) group members can be supported to identify the problem, form possible actions, resolve the conflict and achieve the joint goals. Throughout such a group decision making process, argumentation is widely regarded as a good means to propose the ideas, justify possible alternatives and convince others to achieve group consensus. In this paper, ar...
متن کاملPolarisation assessment in an intelligent argumentation system using fuzzy clustering algorithm for collaborative decision support
We developed an on-line intelligent argumentation system which facilitates stakeholders in exchanging dialogues. It provides decision support by capturing stakeholders’ rationale through arguments. As part of the argumentation process, stakeholders tend to both polarise their opinions and form polarisation groups. The challenging issue of assessing argumentation polarisation had not been addres...
متن کاملA Process Evaluation to Assess Contextual Factors Associated With the Uptake of a Rapid Response Service to Support Health Systems’ Decision-Making in Uganda
Background Although proven feasible, rapid response services (RRSs) to support urgent decision and policymaking are still a fairly new and innovative strategy in several health systems, more especially in low-income countries. There are several information gaps about these RRSs that exist including the factors that make them work in different contexts and in addition what affects their uptake b...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2009