ArticleMethodsX2025
A systematical procedure to extracting legal entities from Indonesian judicial decisions.
Article in MethodsX, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents a systematic method of extracting legal entities from Indonesian judicial decisions with a well-structured named entity recognition (NER) approach. The procedure was implemented by gathering and annotating court decisions for theft cases at three court levels: first instance (2478 files), appeal (147 files), and cassation (62 files), amounting to 2687 annotated files. The data were harvested from the official website of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia using automated web scraping, followed by manual filtering for relevance and completeness. Manual annotation was performed with the Label Studio platform by three independent annotators. Annotation consistency was considered using Fleiss' Kappa, yielding an average agreement score of 0.705 across all levels, indicating good inter-annotator reliability. The method uses a hierarchical structure and a BIO tagging scheme to tag >50 types of legal entities, including defendants, judges, legal articles, charges, and verdict decisions. This approach is proper for text processes such as legal information extraction, classification, and legal analysis. From a legal perspective, this process will improve legal transparency and research on Indonesian judicial data.•Structured pipeline for gathering, filtering, and annotating Indonesian court judgments based on legal metadata and web scraping.•Manual annotation of 2687 court documents with annotation rules and inter-annotator agreement using Fleiss' Kappa.•Token-level translation and BIO tagging for >50 legal entities, enabling downstream NLP tasks such as named entity recognition.
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.