MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining Worker Type from Legal Text Data using Machine Learning

2020· article· en· W3101639274 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningIndependent contractorKey (lock)Data modelingAnalyticsData scienceKnowledge managementEngineeringWork (physics)DatabaseComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project addresses a classic employment law question in Canada and elsewhere using machine learning approach: how do we know whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor? This is a central issue for self-represented litigants insofar as these two legal categories entail very different rights and employment protections. In this interdisciplinary research study, we collaborated with the Conflict Analytics Lab to develop machine learning models aimed at determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. We present a number of supervised learning models including a neural network model that we implemented using data labeled by law researchers and compared the accuracy of the models. Our neural network model achieved an accuracy rate of 91.5%. A critical discussion follows to identify the key features in the data that influence the accuracy of our models and provide insights about the case outcomes.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.093 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207