Sentiment analysis of Canadian maritime case law: a sentiment case law and deep learning approach
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
Abstract Historical information in the Canadian Maritime Judiciary increases with time because of the need to archive data to be utilized in case references and for later application when determining verdicts for similar cases. However, such data are typically stored in multiple systems, making its reachability technical. Utilizing technologies like deep learning and sentiment analysis provides chances to facilitate faster access to court records. Such practice enhances impartial verdicts, minimizing workloads for court employees, and decreases the time used in legal proceedings for claims during maritime contracts such as shipping disputes between parties. This paper seeks to develop a sentiment analysis framework that uses deep learning, distributed learning, and machine learning to improve access to statutes, laws, and cases used by maritime judges in making judgments to back their claims. The suggested approach uses deep learning models, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), deep neural networks, long short-term memory (LSTM), and recurrent neural networks. It extracts court records having crucial sentiments or statements for maritime court verdicts. The suggested approach has been used successfully during sentiment analysis by emphasizing feature selection from a legal repository. The LSTM + CNN model has shown promising results in obtaining sentiments and records from multiple devices and sufficiently proposing practical guidance to judicial personnel regarding the regulations applicable to various situations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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