MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406325001 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v40.9191

Generative AI and Access to Justice in Canada: The Case of Self-Represented Litigants [SRLs]

2024· article· en· W4406325001 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Fife Ogunde

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarEconomic JusticeHumanitiesSociologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines generative AI’s influence from the perspective of SRLs, exploring the potential and limitations of Large Language Model [LLM] usage by this category of litigants. The paper argues that LLMs can play a significant role in enabling SRLs present decent cases in court and effectively participate in legal proceedings. However, the inherent deficiencies in LLMs may mean that LLMs do more harm than good to the cause of SRLs, particularly those who lack any form of legal training or knowledge. Ultimately, the ability of SRLs to properly harness the potential of LLMs will depend more on the literacy and understanding of SRLs rather than the availability of the technology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207