<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="walker-etal-2018-evidence">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Evidence Types, Credibility Factors, and Patterns or Soft Rules for Weighing Conflicting Evidence: Argument Mining in the Context of Legal Rules Governing Evidence Assessment</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Vern</namePart>
        <namePart type="given">R</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Walker</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Dina</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Foerster</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Julia</namePart>
        <namePart type="given">Monica</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Ponce</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Matthew</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Rosen</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>2018-11</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Argument Mining</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Noam</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Slonim</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Ranit</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Aharonov</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <originInfo>
            <publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
            <place>
                <placeTerm type="text">Brussels, Belgium</placeTerm>
            </place>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>This paper reports on the results of an empirical study of adjudicatory decisions about veterans’ claims for disability benefits in the United States. It develops a typology of kinds of relevant evidence (argument premises) employed in cases, and it identifies factors that the tribunal considers when assessing the credibility or trustworthiness of individual items of evidence. It also reports on patterns or “soft rules” that the tribunal uses to comparatively weigh the probative value of conflicting evidence. These evidence types, credibility factors, and comparison patterns are developed to be inter-operable with legal rules governing the evidence assessment process in the U.S. This approach should be transferable to other legal and non-legal domains.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">walker-etal-2018-evidence</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/W18-5209</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://aclanthology.org/W18-5209/</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>2018-11</date>
        <extent unit="page">
            <start>68</start>
            <end>78</end>
        </extent>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Evidence Types, Credibility Factors, and Patterns or Soft Rules for Weighing Conflicting Evidence: Argument Mining in the Context of Legal Rules Governing Evidence Assessment
%A Walker, Vern R.
%A Foerster, Dina
%A Ponce, Julia Monica
%A Rosen, Matthew
%Y Slonim, Noam
%Y Aharonov, Ranit
%S Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Argument Mining
%D 2018
%8 November
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Brussels, Belgium
%F walker-etal-2018-evidence
%X This paper reports on the results of an empirical study of adjudicatory decisions about veterans’ claims for disability benefits in the United States. It develops a typology of kinds of relevant evidence (argument premises) employed in cases, and it identifies factors that the tribunal considers when assessing the credibility or trustworthiness of individual items of evidence. It also reports on patterns or “soft rules” that the tribunal uses to comparatively weigh the probative value of conflicting evidence. These evidence types, credibility factors, and comparison patterns are developed to be inter-operable with legal rules governing the evidence assessment process in the U.S. This approach should be transferable to other legal and non-legal domains.
%R 10.18653/v1/W18-5209
%U https://aclanthology.org/W18-5209/
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5209
%P 68-78

Markdown (Informal)

[Evidence Types, Credibility Factors, and Patterns or Soft Rules for Weighing Conflicting Evidence: Argument Mining in the Context of Legal Rules Governing Evidence Assessment](https://aclanthology.org/W18-5209/) (Walker et al., ArgMining 2018)

• Evidence Types, Credibility Factors, and Patterns or Soft Rules for Weighing Conflicting Evidence: Argument Mining in the Context of Legal Rules Governing Evidence Assessment (Walker et al., ArgMining 2018)

ACL

• Vern R. Walker, Dina Foerster, Julia Monica Ponce, and Matthew Rosen. 2018. Evidence Types, Credibility Factors, and Patterns or Soft Rules for Weighing Conflicting Evidence: Argument Mining in the Context of Legal Rules Governing Evidence Assessment. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Argument Mining, pages 68–78, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.