Enhancing Legal Sentiment Analysis: A Convolutional Neural Network–Long Short-Term Memory Document-Level Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates the application of deep learning in sentiment analysis of Canadian maritime case law. It offers a framework for improving maritime law and legal analytic policy-making procedures. The automation of legal document extraction takes center stage, underscoring the vital role sentiment analysis plays at the document level. Therefore, this study introduces a novel strategy for sentiment analysis in Canadian maritime case law, combining sentiment case law approaches with state-of-the-art deep learning techniques. The overarching goal is to systematically unearth hidden biases within case law and investigate their impact on legal outcomes. Employing Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)- and long short-term memory (LSTM)-based models, this research achieves a remarkable accuracy of 98.05% for categorizing instances. In contrast, conventional machine learning techniques such as support vector machine (SVM) yield an accuracy rate of 52.57%, naïve Bayes at 57.44%, and logistic regression at 61.86%. The superior accuracy of the CNN and LSTM model combination underscores its usefulness in legal sentiment analysis, offering promising future applications in diverse fields like legal analytics and policy design. These findings mark a significant choice for AI-powered legal tools, presenting more sophisticated and sentiment-aware options for the legal profession.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".