MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384079041 · doi:10.1504/ijbis.2023.132073

Soft-computing method for settling land disputes cases based on text similarity

2023· article· en· W4384079041 on OpenAlexaff
Okure Obot, Faith Michael E. Uzoka, Anietie E. John, Samuel S. Udoh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Information Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJaccard indexFuzzy logicCosine similaritySimilarity (geometry)Trigonometric functionsEconomic JusticeMathematicsComputer scienceData miningArtificial intelligenceLawPattern recognition (psychology)Political scienceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incessant delays in the administration of justice in land disputes cases caused by inability to access similar cases often lead people to take laws into their own hands, resulting in wanton destruction of lives and property. In this study, three similarity models, namely: cosine, Jaccard, and text semantic similarity (TSS) and fuzzy logic technology were reviewed and applied to 205 settled cases of land disputes collected from the high court of justice in Ikot Ekpene, Nigeria. Our study revealed that the cosine similarity measure had the strongest correlation, (72%) followed by Jaccard (70%), fuzzy logic (70%) and TSS (63%). Considering this, we recommend fuzzy logic combined with cosine for the building of a legal case-based reasoning system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business Information SystemsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207