MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6943913246 · doi:10.17632/7v4jmbjwvc

Sentiment Analysis of Canadian Maritime Case Law: A Sentiment Case Law and Deep Learning Approach

2023· dataset· en· W6943913246 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMendeley Data · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningSentiment analysisLegal caseCommon lawCase analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study employs machine and deep learning methods to expedite legal proceedings to retrieve legal data, classify, review, and predict judgments. Our study adds significantly to the literature because many countries' judicial systems have backlogs that cause delays in justice. The sentiment analysis framework employs deep, distributed, and machine learning to provide access to statutes, laws, and cases, allowing Canadian maritime judges to resolve cases more efficiently. The proposed LSTM+CNN model demonstrated promising results in extracting sentiments and records from various devices and providing practical guidance. As a result, the model can be applied to other systems that adhere to the common-law framework.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMendeley DataFrench-language works237,207