Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39099768›Full record

ArticleArtificial intelligence and law2024

Predicting citations in Dutch case law with natural language processing.

Iris Schepers, Masha Medvedeva, Michelle Bruijn, Martijn Wieling, Michel Vols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Artificial intelligence and law, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Iris SchepersDepartment of Legal Methods, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4036-5904
Masha MedvedevaCenter for Law and Digital Technologies, Faculty of Law, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2972-8447
Michelle BruijnDepartment of Legal Methods, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1904-8122
Martijn WielingCenter for Language and Cognition Groningen, Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0434-1526
Michel VolsDepartment of Legal Methods, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5762-8697

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the ever-growing accessibility of case law online, it has become challenging to manually identify case law relevant to one's legal issue. In the Netherlands, the planned increase in the online publication of case law is expected to exacerbate this challenge. In this paper, we tried to predict whether court decisions are cited by other courts or not after being published, thus in a way distinguishing between more and less authoritative cases. This type of system may be used to process the large amounts of available data by filtering out large quantities of non-authoritative decisions, thus helping legal practitioners and scholars to find relevant decisions more easily, and drastically reducing the time spent on preparation and analysis. For the Dutch Supreme Court, the match between our prediction and the actual data was relatively strong (with a Matthews Correlation Coefficient of 0.60). Our results were less successful for the Council of State and the district courts (MCC scores of 0.26 and 0.17, relatively). We also attempted to identify the most informative characteristics of a decision. We found that a completely explainable model, consisting only of handcrafted metadata features, performs almost as well as a less well-explainable system based on all text of the decision.

Indexed as

Case lawCitation analysisJudicial decisionsMachine learningNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID39099768
PMCPMC11291598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.