{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,21]],"date-time":"2025-02-21T07:21:19Z","timestamp":1740122479359,"version":"3.37.3"},"reference-count":60,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,10]],"date-time":"2020-10-10T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1602288000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.springer.com\/tdm"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,10]],"date-time":"2020-10-10T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1602288000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.springer.com\/tdm"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100002923","name":"CONICET","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","award":["PIP 11220170100871CO"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["PIP 11220170100871CO"]}],"id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100002923","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]},{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100005740","name":"Universidad Nacional del Sur","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","award":["PGI 24\/N051","PGI 24\/ZN32"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["PGI 24\/N051","PGI 24\/ZN32"]}],"id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100005740","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]},{"name":"H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions","award":["690974"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["690974"]}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Artif Intell Law"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,9]]},"DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-020-09277-x","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,10]],"date-time":"2020-10-10T19:02:52Z","timestamp":1602356572000},"page":"311-350","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["On argument acceptability change towards legal interpretation dynamics"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"29","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-9880-0214","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Mart\u00edn O.","family":"Moguillansky","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Luciano H.","family":"Tamargo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,10]]},"reference":[{"key":"9277_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"510","DOI":"10.2307\/2274239","volume":"50","author":"C Alchourr\u00f3n","year":"1985","unstructured":"Alchourr\u00f3n C, G\u00e4rdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symb Log 50:510\u2013530","journal-title":"J Symb Log"},{"issue":"9","key":"9277_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2028","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijar.2013.10.004","volume":"55","author":"L Amgoud","year":"2014","unstructured":"Amgoud L (2014) Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int J Approx Reason 55(9):2028\u20132048","journal-title":"Int J Approx Reason"},{"key":"9277_CR3","unstructured":"Araszkiewicz M (2013) Towards systematic research on statutory interpretation in AI and law. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2013. IOS Press"},{"key":"9277_CR4","unstructured":"Araszkiewicz M (2014) Scientia juris: a missing link in the modelling of statutory reasoning. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2014. IOS Press"},{"key":"9277_CR5","unstructured":"Araszkiewicz M, Zurek T (2015) Comprehensive framework embracing the complexity of statutory interpretation. In: Legal knowledge and information systems\u2014JURIX 2015: the twenty-eighth annual conference, Braga, Portugal, December 10\u201311, 2015, pp 145\u2013148"},{"key":"9277_CR6","unstructured":"Baumann R (2012) What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: ECAI 2012, Montpellier, France, 2012, volume 242 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 127\u2013132"},{"key":"9277_CR7","unstructured":"Baumann R, Brewka G (2010) Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: COMMA 2010, D. del Garda, Italy, 2010, volume 216 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 75\u201386"},{"key":"9277_CR8","unstructured":"Baumann R, Brewka G (2015) AGM meets abstract argumentation: expansion and revision for dung frameworks. In: Yang Q, Wooldridge MJ (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25\u201331, 2015. AAAI Press, pp 2734\u20132740"},{"key":"9277_CR9","unstructured":"Beltr\u00e1n JF (2018) Proleg\u00f3menos para teor\u00eda sobre los est\u00e1ndares de prueba. El test case de la responsabilidad del Estado por prisi\u00f3n preventiva err\u00f3nea. In: Papayannis D, Pereira E (eds) Filosof\u00eda del derecho privado, Madrid (ESP), 2018. Marcial Pons, pp 401\u2013430"},{"issue":"1\u20133","key":"9277_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"79","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1019501830692","volume":"10","author":"T Bench-Capon","year":"2002","unstructured":"Bench-Capon T (2002) The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1\u20133):79\u201394","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9277_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.7551\/mitpress\/9780262026437.001.0001","volume-title":"Elements of argumentation","author":"P Besnard","year":"2008","unstructured":"Besnard P, Hunter A (2008) Elements of argumentation. The MIT Press, Cambridge"},{"key":"9277_CR12","unstructured":"Booth R, Caminada M, Podlaszewski M, Rahwan I (2012) Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning. In: AAMAS 2012, Valencia, Spain, 2012. IFAAMAS, pp 493\u2013500"},{"key":"9277_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Booth R, Kaci S, Rienstra T, van der Torre LWN (2013) A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: SUM 2013, Washington, DC, USA, 2013. Proceedings, volume 8078 of LNCS. Springer, pp 148\u2013161","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-40381-1_12"},{"key":"9277_CR14","volume-title":"Coherence: insights from philosophy, jurisprudence and artificial intelligence","author":"B Brozek","year":"2013","unstructured":"Brozek B (2013) Legal interpretation and coherence. In: Araszkiewicz M, Savelka J (eds) Coherence: insights from philosophy, jurisprudence and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin"},{"key":"9277_CR15","unstructured":"Cerutti F, Giacomin M, Vallati M (2014) ArgSemSAT: solving argumentation problems using SAT. In: Parsons S, Oren N, Reed C, Cerutti F (eds) Computational models of argument\u2014proceedings of COMMA 2014, Atholl Palace Hotel, Scottish Highlands, UK, September 9\u201312, 2014, volume 266 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 455\u2013456"},{"key":"9277_CR16","unstructured":"Cerutti F, Vallati M, Giacomin M (2016) jArgSemSAT: an efficient off-the-shelf solver for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Baral C, Delgrande JP, Wolter F (eds) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the fifteenth international conference, KR 2016, Cape Town, South Africa, April 25\u201329, 2016. AAAI Press, pp 541\u2013544"},{"key":"9277_CR17","unstructured":"Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Naci\u00f3n (CSJN) (1999) Fayt, Carlos Santiago c\/Estado Nacional s\/proceso de conocimiento. F100XXXV T. 322, P. Id SAIJ: FA99000204"},{"key":"9277_CR18","unstructured":"Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Naci\u00f3n (CSJN) (2017) Schiffrin, Leopoldo H\u00f3tor c\/Poder Ejecutivo Nacional s\/acci\u00e9n meramente declarativa. Causa No. 159\/2012(48-S)\/CS1"},{"key":"9277_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Coste-Marquis S, Konieczny S, Mailly J, Marquis P (2014a) A translation-based approach for revision of argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of JELIA 2014, Madeira, Portugal, 2014, volume 8761 of LNCS. Springer, pp 397\u2013411","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-11558-0_28"},{"key":"9277_CR20","unstructured":"Coste-Marquis S, Konieczny S, Mailly J, Marquis P (2014b) On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of arguments statuses. In: KR 2014, Vienna, Austria, 2014. AAAI Press"},{"key":"9277_CR21","unstructured":"Coste-Marquis S, Konieczny S, Mailly J, Marquis P (2015) Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In: Yang Q, Wooldridge MJ (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25\u201331, 2015. AAAI Press, pp 2876\u20132882"},{"key":"9277_CR22","unstructured":"Diller M, Haret A, Linsbichler T, R\u00fcmmele S, Woltran S (2015) An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation. In: Yang Q, Wooldridge MJ (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25\u201331, 2015. AAAI Press, pp 2926\u20132932"},{"key":"9277_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"321","DOI":"10.1016\/0004-3702(94)00041-X","volume":"77","author":"PM Dung","year":"1995","unstructured":"Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming and $n$-person games. Artif Intell 77:321\u2013357","journal-title":"Artif Intell"},{"issue":"18","key":"9277_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1559","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2009.09.001","volume":"173","author":"PE Dunne","year":"2009","unstructured":"Dunne PE (2009) The computational complexity of ideal semantics. Artif Intell 173(18):1559\u20131591","journal-title":"Artif Intell"},{"issue":"1\/2","key":"9277_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"187","DOI":"10.1016\/S0004-3702(02)00261-8","volume":"141","author":"PE Dunne","year":"2002","unstructured":"Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (2002) Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif Intell 141(1\/2):187\u2013203","journal-title":"Artif Intell"},{"issue":"8","key":"9277_CR26","first-page":"631","volume":"4","author":"W Dvor\u00e1k","year":"2017","unstructured":"Dvor\u00e1k W, Dunne PE (2017) Computational problems in formal argumentation and their complexity. FLAP 4(8):631\u2013687","journal-title":"FLAP"},{"key":"9277_CR27","volume-title":"Law\u2019s empire","author":"R Dworkin","year":"1986","unstructured":"Dworkin R (1986) Law\u2019s empire. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge"},{"key":"#cr-split#-9277_CR28.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Farley AM, Freeman K (1995) Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In: McCarty LT","DOI":"10.1145\/222092.222227"},{"key":"#cr-split#-9277_CR28.2","unstructured":"(ed) Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL'95, College Park, Maryland, USA, May 21-24, 1995. ACM, pp 156-164"},{"key":"9277_CR29","volume-title":"Knowledge in flux: modelling the dynamics of epistemic states","author":"P G\u00e4rdenfors","year":"1988","unstructured":"G\u00e4rdenfors P (1988) Knowledge in flux: modelling the dynamics of epistemic states. The MIT Press, Bradford Books, Cambridge"},{"key":"9277_CR30","unstructured":"Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The carneades argumentation framework\u2014using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006, September 11\u201312, 2006, Liverpool, UK, volume 144 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 195\u2013207"},{"key":"9277_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"239","DOI":"10.1007\/978-0-387-98197-0_12","volume-title":"Argumentation in artificial intelligence","author":"TF Gordon","year":"2009","unstructured":"Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Simari GR, Rahwan I (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239\u2013258"},{"issue":"9\u201310","key":"9277_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1479","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2010.12.003","volume":"175","author":"N Gorogiannis","year":"2011","unstructured":"Gorogiannis N, Hunter A (2011) Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif Intell 175(9\u201310):1479\u20131497","journal-title":"Artif Intell"},{"key":"9277_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Governatori G, Rotolo A, Olivieri F, Scannapieco S (2013) Legal contractions: a logical analysis. In: Francesconi E, Verheij B (eds) International conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL\u201913, Rome, Italy, June 10\u201314, 2013. ACM, pp 63\u201372","DOI":"10.1145\/2514601.2514609"},{"key":"9277_CR34","unstructured":"Guastini R (2003) Estudios sobre la Interpretaci\u00f3n Jur\u00eddica. S.A. Editorial Porrua, M\u00e9xico DF, M\u00e9xico"},{"key":"9277_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-015-8873-7","volume-title":"Reasoning with rules: an essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic","author":"J Hage","year":"1997","unstructured":"Hage J (1997) Reasoning with rules: an essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht"},{"key":"9277_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-007-0814-3","volume-title":"A textbook of belief dynamics. Theory change and database updating","author":"SO Hansson","year":"1999","unstructured":"Hansson SO (1999) A textbook of belief dynamics. Theory change and database updating. Kluwer, Dordrecht"},{"key":"#cr-split#-9277_CR37.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kr\u00f6ll M, Pichler R, Woltran S (2017) On the complexity of enumerating the extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Sierra C","DOI":"10.24963\/ijcai.2017\/159"},{"key":"#cr-split#-9277_CR37.2","unstructured":"(ed) Proceedings of the twenty-sixth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Australia, August 19-25, 2017. ijcai.org, pp 1145-1152"},{"issue":"4","key":"9277_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"423","DOI":"10.1007\/BF00485649","volume":"34","author":"I Levi","year":"1977","unstructured":"Levi I (1977) Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese 34(4):423\u2013455","journal-title":"Synthese"},{"key":"9277_CR39","unstructured":"Macagno F, Sartor G, Walton D (2012) Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation. In: Proceedings of ARGUMENTATION 2012. Masaryk University"},{"volume-title":"Interpreting statutes: a comparative study","year":"1991","key":"9277_CR40","unstructured":"MacCormick D, Summers R (eds) (1991) Interpreting statutes: a comparative study. Ashgate, Farnham"},{"key":"9277_CR41","unstructured":"Malerba A, Rotolo A, Governatori G (2016) Interpretation across legal systems. In: Legal knowledge and information systems\u2014JURIX 2016: the twenty-ninth annual conference, pp 83\u201392"},{"key":"9277_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Moguillansky MO (2016) A study of argument acceptability dynamics through core and remainder sets. In: Gyssens M, Simari GR (eds) Foundations of information and knowledge systems\u20149th international symposium, FoIKS 2016, Linz, Austria, March 7\u201311, 2016. Proceedings, volume 9616 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 3\u201323","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-30024-5_1"},{"key":"9277_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"141","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eswa.2016.07.027","volume":"64","author":"MO Moguillansky","year":"2016","unstructured":"Moguillansky MO, Simari GR (2016) A generalized abstract argumentation framework for inconsistency-tolerant ontology reasoning. Expert Syst Appl 64:141\u2013168","journal-title":"Expert Syst Appl"},{"key":"9277_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Moguillansky MO, Simari GR (2017) Dynamics of the judicial process by defeater activation. In: Pagallo U, Palmirani M, Casanovas P, Sartor G, Villata S (eds) AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems\u2014AICOL international workshops 2015\u20132017: AICOL-VI@JURIX 2015, AICOL-VII@EKAW 2016, AICOL-VIII@JURIX 2016, AICOL-IX@ICAIL 2017, and AICOL-X@JURIX 2017, revised selected papers, volume 10791 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 495\u2013512","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-030-00178-0_34"},{"key":"9277_CR45","first-page":"132","volume-title":"AAAI","author":"MO Moguillansky","year":"2008","unstructured":"Moguillansky MO, Rotstein ND, Falappa MA, Garc\u00eda AJ, Simari GR (2008) Argument theory change applied to defeasible logic programming. In: Fox D, Gomes CP (eds) AAAI. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, pp 132\u2013137"},{"key":"9277_CR46","unstructured":"Moguillansky MO, Rotstein ND, Falappa MA, Garc\u00eda AJ, Simari GR (2010) Argument theory change through defeater activation. In: Baroni P, Cerutti F, Giacomin M, Simari GR (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2010, Desenzano del Garda, Italy, September 8\u201310, 2010, volume 216 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 359\u2013366"},{"issue":"1","key":"9277_CR47","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"154","DOI":"10.1093\/jigpal\/jzr029","volume":"20","author":"MO Moguillansky","year":"2012","unstructured":"Moguillansky MO, Wassermann R, Falappa MA (2012) Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change. Log J IGPL 20(1):154\u2013186","journal-title":"Log J IGPL"},{"key":"9277_CR48","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"37","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eswa.2019.03.047","volume":"129","author":"MO Moguillansky","year":"2019","unstructured":"Moguillansky MO, Rotolo A, Simari GR (2019) Hypotheses and their dynamics in legal argumentation. Expert Syst Appl 129:37\u201355","journal-title":"Expert Syst Appl"},{"key":"9277_CR49","unstructured":"Prakken H, Sartor G (2013). Formalising arguments about norms. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2013. IOS Press"},{"key":"9277_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"214","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2015.06.005","volume":"227","author":"H Prakken","year":"2015","unstructured":"Prakken H, Sartor G (2015) Law and logic: a review from an argumentation perspective. Artif Intell 227:214\u2013245","journal-title":"Artif Intell"},{"key":"9277_CR51","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Rotolo A, Governatori G, Sartor G (2015) Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, June 8\u201312, 2015, pp 99\u2013108","DOI":"10.1145\/2746090.2746100"},{"key":"9277_CR52","unstructured":"Rotstein ND, Moguillansky MO, Falappa MA, Garc\u00eda AJ, Simari GR (2008) Argument theory change: revision upon warrant. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp 336\u2013347"},{"key":"9277_CR53","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1007\/BF00118477","volume":"1","author":"D Skalak","year":"1992","unstructured":"Skalak D, Rissland E (1992) Arguments and cases: an inevitable intertwining. Artif Intell Law 1:3\u201344","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9277_CR54","unstructured":"Tamargo LH, Martinez DC, Rotolo A, Governatori G (2017) Temporalised belief revision in the law. In: Wyner AZ, Casini G (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems\u2014JURIX 2017: the thirtieth annual conference, Luxembourg, 13\u201315 December 2017, volume 302 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 49\u201358"},{"issue":"4","key":"9277_CR55","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"347","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-019-09241-4","volume":"27","author":"LH Tamargo","year":"2019","unstructured":"Tamargo LH, Martinez DC, Rotolo A, Governatori G (2019) An axiomatic characterization of temporalised belief revision in the law. Artif Intell Law 27(4):347\u2013367","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9277_CR56","unstructured":"Tarello G (1980) L\u2019interpretazione della legge. Milano, Dott. A. Giuffr\u00e8 Editore"},{"key":"9277_CR57","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Vreeswijk G, Prakken H (2000) Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Ojeda-Aciego M, de Guzm\u00e1n IP, Brewka G, Pereira LM (eds) Logics in artificial intelligence, European workshop, JELIA 2000 Malaga, Spain, September 29\u2013October 2, 2000, proceedings, volume 1919 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 239\u2013253","DOI":"10.1007\/3-540-40006-0_17"},{"issue":"1","key":"9277_CR58","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"51","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-016-9179-0","volume":"24","author":"D Walton","year":"2016","unstructured":"Walton D, Sartor G, Macagno F (2016) An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation. Artif Intell Law 24(1):51\u201391","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"}],"container-title":["Artificial Intelligence and Law"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s10506-020-09277-x.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10506-020-09277-x\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s10506-020-09277-x.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,10,11]],"date-time":"2021-10-11T00:05:43Z","timestamp":1633910743000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s10506-020-09277-x"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,10]]},"references-count":60,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,9]]}},"alternative-id":["9277"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-020-09277-x","relation":{},"ISSN":["0924-8463","1572-8382"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"0924-8463"},{"type":"electronic","value":"1572-8382"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,10]]},"assertion":[{"value":"10 September 2020","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"10 October 2020","order":2,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}}]}}