MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591887453

Overcoming the digital tsunami in e-discovery: is visual analysis the answer?

2011· article· en· W2591887453 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Field (mathematics)Data scienceInformation retrieval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New technologies are generating potentially discoverable evidence in electronic form in ever increasing volumes. As a result, traditional techniques of document search and retrieval in pursuit of electronic discovery in litigation are becoming less viable. One potential new technological solution to the e-discovery search and retrieval challenge is Visual Analysis (VA). VA is a technology that combines the computational power of the computer with graphical representations of large datasets to enable interactive analytic capabilities. This article provides an overview of VA technology and how it is being applied in the analysis of e-mail and other electronic documents in the field of e-discovery, as well as discussing several challenges and limitations of the technology. The article concludes that VA has the potential to overcome some of the limitations of current search and retrieval techniques, but that addressing the digital tsunami is more likely to be achieved by using VA in combination with other search and retrieval technologies in the context of creating an effective data governance program.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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