MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399172120 · doi:10.69662/jllrd.v1i1.6

Empowering Justice: Exploring The Applicability of AI in The Judicial System

2024· article· en· W4399172120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. John A.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Legal Research Development. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeLegislatureDilemmaScarcityPolitical scienceValue (mathematics)LawLaw and economicsSociologyEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constant increase in the number of pending cases in Indian courts has been a cause of concern for the legislative, executive and the judicial wings of the country. To address this issue, several measures have been taken, including pushing for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms and eliminating unnecessary laws, but using the recently discovered field of Artificial Intelligence to address this dilemma is still unexplored. A civil or criminal trial can take years to be settled, in contrast to industrialised countries where trials can be completed in a few days. This is due to the issue of a judge scarcity and the rising number of cases being instituted. The end outcome is inefficient and delayed justice delivery, which is not beneficial to any society. Therefore, in addition to traditional answers, creative thinking is required to bring back the efficacy and efficiency of the justice delivery system and ensure its sustainability. Using artificial intelligence to decide legal cases is one such solution. Since India's courts are already undergoing a radical transition as a result of turning digital, the newly-emerging field of study known as "Artificial Intelligence," or "AI," may be able to provide long-term justice delivery and clear the backlog of unresolved cases in unexpected ways. AI systems have already been used by the judiciaries in several developed nations, like the United States and Canada, to support the judges. Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly be a blessing to ensure a sustainable and efficient justice delivery system, as it has already shown its value in a number of industries, including marketing by tracking consumer purchasing patterns, self-driving cars, medical, and transportation. In this research, the benefit of using artificial intelligence to make decisions in court is a workable way to reduce the backlog of cases in India and other jurisdictions while also guaranteeing quick and long-lasting justice delivery systems globally.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Legal Research Development.Same topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207