JUDGEBERT: Assessing Legal Meaning Preservation Between Sentences
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
Simplifying text while preserving its meaning is a complex yet essential task, especially in sensitive domain applications like legal texts.When applied to a specialized field, like the legal domain, preservation differs significantly from its role in regular texts.This paper introduces FrJUDGE, a new dataset to assess legal meaning preservation between two legal texts.It also introduces JUDGEBERT, a novel evaluation metric designed to assess legal meaning preservation in French legal text simplification.JUDGEBERT demonstrates a superior correlation with human judgment compared to existing metrics.It also passes two crucial sanity checks, while other metrics did not: For two identical sentences, it always returns a score of 100%; on the other hand, it returns 0% for two unrelated sentences.Our findings highlight its potential to transform legal NLP applications, ensuring accuracy and accessibility for text simplification for legal practitioners and lay users.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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