Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lawyers across the world are beginning to use statistics, machine learning, and data science to review contracts, investigate case law, or predict judicial outcomes. This ability to mine law as data is known as legal analytics. Legal analytics promises to render legal analysis scalable as lawyers can quickly peruse hundreds, thousands, or even millions of legal texts that would take months to read. Legal information thereby not only becomes more accessible, but legal services can be provided more efficiently and effectively helping to close the access-to-justice gap. Data and algorithms power such legal analytics. But whereas algorithms are often open source, access to legal documents such as statutes or cases in bulk is surprisingly restricted as data is often concentrated among a few large legal service providers. Creating a healthy ecosystem for legal analytics to thrive thus requires open legal data, while protecting sensitive private information, as well as innovation and competition among providers.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".