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 OpenAlex
Intisar Almuslim, Sean Stilwell, S. Suresh, Diana Inkpen

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.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.139
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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207