MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7160327588 · doi:10.1145/3789692.3789715

Efficiency focused analytic review of NLP and Machine Learning Applications in Legal Reasoning and Ethical Business Decision-Making

2025· article· W7160327588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nafosat Sharopova, Umidjon Duskobilov, Azizjon Rakhmatov, Shaxlo Davirova, Sukhrob Nematulloyev, Sardor Azamov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)BenchmarkingNormativeCorporate governanceBridge (graph theory)Decision support systemMultinational corporation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While business leaders have increasingly sought to manage ethical compliance in their decision-making frameworks, their understanding of what responsible AI is and what should be prioritized remains fragmented. Within the broader objective of AI-driven models supporting legal professionals in their response to complex regulatory scenarios, we conducted a multi-method analysis for benchmarking best practices. We argue a key challenge with organizations’ efforts to manage machine-assisted decisions is that it is a contextually ambiguous concept for them. To bridge this gap, the present study evaluates the hierarchical criteria and performance attributes related to an efficiency-oriented framework, whereby both normative reasoning and computational accuracy are included. We interviewed legal analysts at multinational corporate governance units in Germany, Singapore, and Canada and identified systematic barriers to managing ethical dilemmas at different stages of automated decision processes. We were able to establish a balance between the need for transparency and the predictive performance by combining the output from three different models, each aiming at contextual relevance, in a hybrid AHP-TOPSIS structure. We also identified that inconsistencies between stakeholders’ intentions to align with ethical codes and what they identify in their machine learning outcomes, reveal important evaluative discrepancies that help to improve organizational understanding of AI-related obligations. The statistical analysis of the proposed decision support system provides a prioritization model of criteria from structured data that lies in cross-sectoral standards with an improved clarification of legal accountability. The procedure shows the great potential of natural language processing in combination with multi-criteria evaluation for informed reasoning even in an ambiguous legal setting.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0230.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics and Social Impacts of AI→French-language works237,207→