ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Bridging jurisdictions and legislatures: an LLM ensemble and arbiter framework for automated legal risk triage in digital media.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial: Advanced integration of large language models for autonomous systems and critical decision support.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Autonomous and semi-automated AI tools are increasingly involved in digital-media workflows, creating a need for reliable preliminary screening of legal risks before publication or moderation decisions are made. Methods: This study presents an LLM Ensemble and Arbiter framework for cross-jurisdiction legal risk triage in digital media. The framework combines: (i) jurisdiction-specific legal grounding through a structured legal knowledge base (LawKB; 61 legal cards covering Ukrainian and EU norms), (ii) five heterogeneous open-weight LLMs, and (iii) a reproducible arbitration policy based on median risk aggregation and disagreement monitoring as a trigger for human review. The pipeline generates separate UA and EU risk assessments, a conservative global verdict, and a traceable rationales to support auditability. Results: The framework was evaluated on 288 news items with lawyer validation across 576 jurisdiction-specific records. In the global mode, the system achieved a mean absolute error of 0.86 and a confidence-weighted mean absolute error of 0.63, with an approval rate of 95.8 and 95.1% accuracy in selecting the best-performing model rationale, while limiting missed CRITICAL-level cases to 6.3%. Discussion: These results indicate that the proposed workflow can support conservative, inspectable, and human-supervised legal risk triage across two jurisdictions. Rather than replacing legal judgment, the framework functions as a preliminary decision-support mechanism that strengthens transparency, structured escalation, auditability, and procedural accountability in high-risk digital-media environments.
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.