MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165804018

The Unpredictable Nature of Termination Notice: A Data Science Experiment

2020· article· en· W3165804018 on OpenAlex
Samuel Dahan, Jonathan Touboul, Jason Lam, Dan Sfedj

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

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticePredictabilitySet (abstract data type)Computer scienceData setLawArtificial intelligenceData sciencePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid advances in data analysis techniques, particularly predictive algorithms, have opened radically new perspectives for legal practice and access to justice. Several firms in North America, Asia and Europe have set out to use machine-learning techniques to create automated legal predictions, raising concerns regarding ethics, reliability and limits on prediction accuracy, and potential impact on case law development. To explore these opportunities and challenges, we consider in depth one of the most litigated issues in Canada: wrongful termination disputes, more specifically the question of reasonable notice calculation. Beyond the thorough analysis of this question, this paper is also intended as a road map for non-technicians, and especially lawyers, on the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods, illustrating both its potential benefits and its limitations in other areas of dispute resolution. To achieve these results, we created a large data set by annotating all historic cases related to wrongful employment termination. This data set has proven useful to assess the predictability of reasonable notice, that is, the accuracy and precision of AI predictions. In particular, it helped to identify the degree of inconsistency and fluctuation in notice period cases, incidentally exposing the limitations of legal predictions. We then developed predictive algorithms to estimate notice periods given details of the employment period, and investigated their accuracy and performance. Moreover, we thoroughly analyzed these algorithms to better understand the judicial process, and in particular to quantify the weight and influence of case-specific features in the determination of reasonable notice. Finally, we closely analyzed cases that were poorly predicted by the AI algorithms in order to better understand the judicial decision process and identify inconsistencies, a strategy that will ultimately yield a deeper practical understanding of case law. This project will open the door to the development of a larger- scale access-to-justice project, and will provide users with an open-access platform for notice calculation. In particular, the tool will help self-represented litigants to appreciate possible outcomes of litigation – in this case, reasonable notice – that is, the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.343 · 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