ArticleHeliyon2024
Artificial intelligence in judicial adjudication: Semantic biasness classification and identification in legal judgement (SBCILJ).
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Research on segmentation method of elderly cardiovascular disease feature images based on artificial intelligence multi-scale feature fusion.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
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
History reveals that human societies have suffered in terms of social justice due to cognitive bias. Semantic bias tends to amplify cognitive bias. Therefore, the presence of cognitive biases in extensive historical data can potentially result in unethical and allegedly inhumane predictions since AI systems are trained on this data. The innovation of artificial intelligence and its rapid integration across disciplines has prompted questions regarding the subjectivity of the technology. Current research focuses the semantic bias in legal judgment to increase the legitimacy of training data. By the application of general-purpose Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms, we classify and detect the semantics bias that is present in the Chinese Artificial Intelligence and Law (CAIL) dataset. Our findings demonstrate that AI models acquire superior prediction power in the CAIL dataset, which is comprised of hundreds of cases, compared to a structured professional risk assessment tool. To assist legal practitioners during this process, innovative approaches that are based on AI may be implemented inside the legal arena. To accomplish this objective, we suggested a classification model for semantic bias that is related to the classification and identification of semantic biases in legal judgment. Our proposed model legal field uses the example of categorization along with the identification of the CAIL dataset. This will be accomplished by identifying the semantics biases in judicial decisions. We used different types of classifiers such as the Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve-Bayes (NB), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), and the K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN) to come across the preferred results. SVM got 96.90 %, NB has 88.80 %, MLP has 86.75 % and KNN achieved 85.66 % accuracy whereas SVM achieved greater accuracy as compared to other models. Additionally, we demonstrate that we were able to get a relatively high classification performance when predicting outcomes based just on the semantic bias categorization in judicial judgments that determine the outcome of the case.
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.