The 3rd International Workshop on Mining and Learning in the Legal Domain
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing accessibility of legal corpora and databases create opportunities to develop data-driven techniques and advanced tools that can facilitate a variety of tasks in the legal domain, such as legal search and research, legal document review and summary, legal contract drafting, and legal outcome prediction. Compared with other application domains, the legal domain is characterized by the huge scale of natural language text data, the high complexity of specialist knowledge, and the critical importance of ethical considerations. The MLLD workshop aims to bring together researchers and practitioners to share the latest research findings and innovative approaches in employing data mining, machine learning, information retrieval, and knowledge management techniques to transform the legal sector. Building upon the previous successes, the third edition of the MLLD workshop will emphasize the exploration of new research opportunities brought about by recent rapid advances in Large Language Models and Generative AI. We encourage submissions that intersect computer science and law, from both academia and industry, embodying the interdisciplinary spirit of CIKM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it