MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588449652 · doi:10.5539/cis.v10n1p77

Personalization of Legal and Ethical Information in ICT Platforms: The Approach of Legal Decision Tree

2017· article· en· W2588449652 on OpenAlex

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePersonalizationInformation and Communications TechnologyReuseRepresentation (politics)Set (abstract data type)Decision treeProcess (computing)Key (lock)Tree (set theory)Knowledge managementData scienceWorld Wide WebData miningLawComputer securityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at presenting a theoretical approach for the representation of legal and ethical information in a personalized way in ICT platforms. The personalization process allows us to adapt the legal information for end- users of ICT platforms. This approach points out the key element for defining a complete legal and ethical corpus of documents. Based on the corresponding scenario, the legal information is selected, filtered and then presented in ICT platforms. For organizating and analyzing this legal and ethical information, we reuse the existing notion of the decision tree and enhance it with a set of legal parameters emerging from legal documents. This legal decision tree will help us to treat different types of legal cases, which may relate to different service scenarios.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.015
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · 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