On the public citation graph
Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning
0 signed · 42 inferred · view as graph
Inferred edges come from two machine sources: sweeps of open repository metadata (mostly SSRN and Zenodo), and a bulk OpenAlex citation snapshot. Every row below is labelled with the one it came from. Neither is a complete citation index — absence here is not evidence of absence.
Is this your work? Sign in with ORCID and put your name on the
claims that are yours.
Reference health. See whether every reference in this work resolves to a
known work and none has been retracted — and get a dated CiteStamped
badge you can embed.
What this work says
Outgoing claims: the papers this work cites, builds on, or argues with.
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8484-4openalex-snapshot
New Studies in Deontic Logic
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8484-4_6openalex-snapshot
Non - Kripkean Deontic Logic
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00255570openalex-snapshot
The logic of conditional obligation
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00869304openalex-snapshot
Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01417957openalex-snapshot
Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01531263openalex-snapshot
An argumentation framework in default logic
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01531265openalex-snapshot
Towards a formal theory of defeasible deontic conditionals
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4openalex-snapshot
A logic for default reasoning
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1145/112646.112666openalex-snapshot
A tool in modelling disagreement in law
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1145/158976.158977openalex-snapshot
A logical framework for modelling legal argument
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093637776openalex-snapshot
A different approach to deontic logic: deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic.
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.2307/2272808openalex-snapshot
Carlos E. Alchourrón. Logic of norms and logic of normative propositions. Logique et analyse, n.s. vol. 12 (1969), pp. 242–268.
What points at this work
Incoming claims: where this work appears in other papers’ reference lists and arguments.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45632-5_14openalex-snapshot
The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70761-7_38openalex-snapshot
On Some Inferences Based on Stratified Forward Chaining: An Application to E-Government
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75553-3_2openalex-snapshot
Hypersequent-Based Argumentation: An Instantiation in the Relevance Logic RM
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30960-4_2openalex-snapshot
From Abstract to Concrete Norms in Agent Institutions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60292-8_6openalex-snapshot
From Classical to Non-monotonic Deontic Logic Using ASPIC $$^+$$
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8851-5_10openalex-snapshot
Dyadic Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duty Obligations
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8975-8openalex-snapshot
Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-017-9879-1openalex-snapshot
Deontic Modals: Why Abandon the Default Approach
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9440-3openalex-snapshot
Obligation as Optimal Goal Satisfaction
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-020-09906-1openalex-snapshot
A Generalized Proof-Theoretic Approach to Logical Argumentation Based on Hypersequents
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2003.09.001openalex-snapshot
Introduction: Progress in formal commonsense reasoning
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.06.005openalex-snapshot
Law and logic: A review from an argumentation perspective
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2016.06.003openalex-snapshot
Deductive Argumentation by Enhanced Sequent Calculi and Dynamic Derivations
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2019.02.019openalex-snapshot
Logical argumentation by dynamic proof systems
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008311419377openalex-snapshot
Henry Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2014.1002536openalex-snapshot
Sequent-based logical argumentation
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1109/dexa.1997.617269openalex-snapshot
Giving permission implies giving choice
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2478/v10209-011-0006-9openalex-snapshot
Conflicts in legal knowledge base
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-89openalex-snapshot
Dynamic Derivations for Sequent-Based Logical Argumentation
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1818-3.ch003openalex-snapshot
Individual Reasoning within a Reasoning Community
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2015.89047openalex-snapshot
Imperfection of Domain Knowledge and Its Formalization in Context of Design of Robust Software Systems
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.5555/3237383.3237861openalex-snapshot
Prioritized Sequent-Based Argumentation
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.65109/gvwr8141openalex-snapshot
Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5
Editorial review for independent work. ICSAC — the Institute for Complexity
Science and Advanced Computing — runs a structured editorial panel for researchers
publishing outside journals, and publishes on CiteStamp rails. Submission is free
and goes through ORCID: icsacinstitute.org/submit.