MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385570734 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.semeval-1.79

uOttawa at SemEval-2023 Task 6: Deep Learning for Legal Text Understanding

2023· article· en· W4385570734 on OpenAlexaff
Intisar Almuslim, Sean Stilwell, S. Suresh, Diana Inkpen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)SemEvalJudgementArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingRhetorical questionDeep learningProcess (computing)Domain (mathematical analysis)LinguisticsProgramming languagePolitical scienceLawManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the methods we used for legal text understanding, specifically Task 6 Legal-Eval at SemEval 2023.The outcomes could assist law practitioners and help automate the working process of judicial systems.The shared task defined three main sub-tasks: sub-task A, Rhetorical Roles Prediction (RR); sub-task B, Legal Named Entities Extraction (L-NER); and sub-task C, Court Judgement Prediction with Explanation (CJPE).Our team addressed all three sub-tasks by exploring various Deep Learning (DL) based models.Overall, our team's approaches achieved promising results on all three sub-tasks, demonstrating the potential of deep learning-based models in the judicial domain.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.020

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207