MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385830373 · doi:10.3138/utlj-2023-0005

Courts as Data Guardians for the Public Good

2023· article· en· W4385830373 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily S. Taylor Poppe

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLawPublic recordsGovernment (linguistics)WorkflowBusinessPublic administrationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an increasingly digital world, where data-driven decision making and technology-enhanced workflows are the norm, civil courts lag behind. Despite the rise in electronic filing, many civil court records remain inaccessible and unused by court administrators and other government actors. Meanwhile, for-profit companies increasingly compile court records into massive datasets that facilitate sophisticated legal analytics. This discrepancy between public and private approaches results in unfulfilled potential for court records to inform court operations, procedural rule making, and substantive policy. This article argues for a future in which courts address these failures and take on the role of data guardians for the public good.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207