MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372057545 · doi:10.55662/ajmrr.2022.3404

Electronic Evidence: Defining Document And Record

2022· article· en· W4372057545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Drago Kato

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceMeaning (existential)Empirical researchDescriptive statisticsEmpirical evidencePolitical scienceBusinessManagement sciencePublic relationsLawPsychologyEngineeringStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aimed at examining definition of document and record in the law of evidence in different jurisdictions. This is due to the fact that the meaning of document and record as regards to their uses in legal matters has remained contentious in different jurisdictions. The paper has made a comparative analysis of definition of document with the aim of coming with the definition that is comprehensive enough to cover the further development of technology. Moreover, the study aimed at discussing the application of document in the court proceedings. Design/Methodology This paper has used descriptive study design. Empirical comparative analysis method has been employed by analysing definition of document as enshrined in different legislations of different countries and their application in court proceedings. The surveyed countries include Tanzania, Canada, US and Australia. The criteria for selection of countries involved in this study were based on convenience and availability of information needed. This study employed empirical juridical approach. Different court decision were obtained and examined. With the use of this study design, the paper has been able to meet its objectives. In general, the study used both purposive (probability) and judgement (non probability\) sampling design technique Findings This paper has found that there is a need of having a comprehensive definition of document and record that accommodates even further technological development. This reduces unnecessary amendments in the future. It was found vital to retain the dichotomy between public and private documents as regards to their admissibility to the court proceedings. It was further observed that the business documents be admissible in the same way as are public documents but their admissibility must be compounded by procedural guidance. Original/Value This study is important as it alerts the government on the need of having extensive and wide definitions of document that will be comprehensive and future orientated. Through this study, the government will observe the importance of treating the public document and private document differently in judicial proceedings. Finally, it is expected that, this study can be used by other countries to modify their internal legislations as regard to legal definition of document and record and their admissibility in legal proceedings respectively..

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0200.015
Science and technology studies0.0060.032
Scholarly communication0.0270.031
Open science0.0050.013
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & ReviewSame topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207