ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2024
Valence and interactions in judicial voting.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CompLex: Legal systems through the lens of complexity science.Europhysics letters · 2025Article
- A complexity science approach to law and governance.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The collective statistics of voting on judicial courts present hints about their inner workings. Many approaches for studying these statistics, however, assume that judges' decisions are conditionally independent: a judge reaches a decision based on the case at hand and his or her personal views. In reality, judges interact. We develop a minimal model that accounts for judge bias, depending on the context of the case, and peer interaction. We apply the model to voting data from the US Supreme Court. We find strong evidence that interaction is an important factor across natural courts from 1946 to 2021. We also find that, after accounting for interaction, the recovered biases differ from highly cited ideological scores. Our method exemplifies how physics and complexity-inspired modelling can drive the development of theoretical models and improved measures for political voting. This article is part of the theme issue 'A complexity science approach to law and governance'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.