MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108664951

LetSum, an automatic Legal Text Summarizing system

2004· article· en· W2108664951 on OpenAlex
Atefeh Farzindar, Guy Lapalme

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationTheme (computing)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)Economic JusticeMulti-document summarizationInformation retrievalNatural language processingThematic mapData scienceArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceLawHistoryCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents our work on the development of a new methodology for automatic summarization of justice decision. We describe LetSum (Legal text Sum- marizer), a prototype system, which determines the thematic structure of a judgment in four themes INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, JURIDICAL ANALYSIS and CONCLUSION. Then it identifies the relevant sentences for each theme. We discuss the evaluation of produced summaries with statistical method and also human evaluation based on jurist judgment. The results so far indicate good performance of the system when compared with other summarization technologies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207