Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based
Inferential theory of learning
Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) is an area of machine learning which describes inferential processes performed by learning agents. ITL has been continuously developed by Ryszard S. Michalski, starting in the 1980s. The first known publication of ITL was in 1983. In the ITL learning process is viewed as a search (inference) through hypotheses space guided by a specific goal. The results of learning need to be stored. Stored information will later be used by the learner for future inferences. Inferences are split into multiple categories including conclusive, deduction, and induction. In order for an inference to be considered complete it was required that all categories must be taken into account. This is how the ITL varies from other machine learning theories like Computational Learning Theory and Statistical Learning Theory; which both use singular forms of inference. == Usage == The most relevant published usage of ITL was in scientific journal published in 2012 and used ITL as a way to describe how agent-based learning works. According to the journal "The Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) provides an elegant way of describing learning processes by agents".
Data philanthropy
Data philanthropy refers to the practice of private companies donating corporate data. This data is usually donated to nonprofits or donation-run organizations that have difficulty keeping up with expensive data collection technology. The concept was introduced through the United Nations Global Pulse initiative in 2011 to explore corporate data assets for humanitarian, academic, and societal causes. For example, anonymized mobile data could be used to track disease outbreaks, or data on consumer actions may be shared with researchers to study public health and economic trends. == Definition == A large portion of data collected from the internet consists of user-generated content, such as blogs, social media posts, and information submitted through lead generation and data forms. Additionally, corporations gather and analyze consumer data to gain insight into customer behavior, identify potential markets, and inform investment decisions. United Nations Global Pulse director Robert Kirkpatrick has referred to this type of data as "massive passive data" or "data exhaust." == Challenges == While data philanthropy can enhance development policies, making users' private data available to various organizations raises concerns regarding privacy, ownership, and the equitable use of data. Different techniques, such as differential privacy and alphanumeric strings of information, can allow access to personal data while ensuring user anonymity. However, even if these algorithms work, re-identification may still be possible. Another challenge is convincing corporations to share their data. The data collected by corporations provides them with market competitiveness and insight regarding consumer behavior. Corporations may fear losing their competitive edge if they share the information they have collected with the public. Numerous moral challenges are also encountered. In 2016, Mariarosaria Taddeo, a digital ethics professor at the University of Oxford, proposed an ethical framework to address them. == Sharing strategies == The goal of data philanthropy is to create a global data commons where companies, governments, and individuals can contribute anonymous, aggregated datasets. The United Nations Global Pulse offers four different tactics that companies can use to share their data that preserve consumer anonymity: Share aggregated and derived data sets for analysis under nondisclosure agreements (NDA) Allow researchers to analyze data within the private company's own network under NDAs Real-Time Data Commons: data pooled and aggregated among multiple companies of the same industry to protect competitiveness Public/Private Alerting Network: companies mine data behind their own firewalls and share indicators == Application in various fields == Many corporations take part in data philanthropy, including social networking platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), telecommunications providers (e.g., Verizon, AT&T), and search engines (e.g., Google, Bing). Collecting and sharing anonymized, aggregated user-generated data is made available through data-sharing systems to support research, policy development, and social impact initiatives. By participating in such efforts, these organizations contribute to causes regarded as beneficial to society, allowing institutions to give back meaningfully. With the onset of technological advancements, the sharing of data on a global scale and an in-depth analysis of these data structures could mitigate the effects of global issues such as natural disasters and epidemics. Robert Kirkpatrick, the Director of the United Nations Global Pulse, has argued that this aggregated information is beneficial for the common good and can lead to developments in research and data production in a range of varied fields. === Digital disease detection === Health researchers use digital disease detection by collecting data from various sources—such as social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook), mobile devices (e.g., cell phones, smartphones), online search queries, mobile apps, and sensor data from wearables and environmental sensors—to monitor and predict the spread of infectious diseases. This approach allows them to track and anticipate outbreaks of epidemics (e.g., COVID-19, Ebola), pandemics, vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria, dengue fever), and respiratory illnesses (e.g., influenza, SARS), improving response and intervention strategies for the spread of diseases. In 2008, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collaborated with Google and launched Google Flu Trends, a website that tracked flu-related searches and user locations to track the spread of the flu. Users could visit Google Flu Trends to compare the amount of flu-related search activity versus the reported numbers of flu outbreaks on a graphical map. One drawback of this method of tracking was that Google searches are sometimes performed due to curiosity rather than when an individual is suffering from the flu. According to Ashley Fowlkes, an epidemiologist in the CDC Influenza division, "The Google Flu Trends system tries to account for that type of media bias by modeling search terms over time to see which ones remain stable." Google Flu Trends is no longer publishing current flu estimates on the public website; however, visitors to the site can still view and download previous estimates. Current data can be shared with verified researchers. A study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), published in the October 12, 2012 issue of Science, discussed how phone data helped curb the spread of malaria in Kenya. The researchers mapped phone calls and texts made by 14,816,521 Kenyan mobile phone subscribers. When individuals left their primary living location, the destination and length of journey were calculated. This data was then compared to a 2009 malaria prevalence map to estimate the disease's commonality in each location. Combining all this information, the researchers could estimate the probability of an individual carrying malaria and map the movement of the disease. This research can be used to track the spread of similar diseases. === Humanitarian aid === Calling patterns of mobile phone users can determine the socioeconomic standings of the populace, which can be used to deduce "its access to housing, education, healthcare, and basic services such as water and electricity." Researchers from Columbia University and Karolinska Institute used daily SIM card location data from both before and after the 2010 Haiti earthquake to estimate the movement of people both in response to the earthquake and during the related 2010 Haiti cholera outbreak. Their research suggests that mobile phone data can provide rapid and accurate estimates of population movements during disasters and outbreaks of infectious disease. Big data can also provide information on looming disasters and can assist relief organizations in rapid-response and locating displaced individuals. By analyzing specific patterns within this 'big data', governments and NGOs can enhance responses to disruptive events such as natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and global economic crises. Leveraging real-time information enables a deeper understanding of individual well-being, allowing for more effective interventions. Corporations utilize digital services, such as human sensor systems, to detect and solve impending problems within communities. This is a strategy used by the private sector to anonymously share customer information for public benefit, while preserving user privacy. === Impoverished areas === Poverty still remains a worldwide issue, with over 2.5 billion people currently impoverished. Statistics indicate the widespread use of mobile phones, even within impoverished communities. Additional data can be collected through Internet access, social media, utility payments and governmental statistics. Data-driven activities can lead to the accumulation of 'big data', which in turn can assist international non-governmental organizations in documenting and evaluating the needs of underprivileged populations. Through data philanthropy, NGOs can distribute information while cooperating with governments and private companies. === Corporate === Data philanthropy incorporates aspects of social philanthropy by allowing corporations to create profound impacts through the act of giving back by dispersing proprietary datasets. The public sector collects and preserves information, considered an essential asset. Companies track and analyze users' online activities to gain insight into their needs related to new products and services. These companies view the welfare of the population as key to business expansion and progression by using their data to highlight global citizens' issues. Experts in the private sector emphasize the importance of integrating diverse data sources—such as retail, mobile, and social media data—to develop essential solutions for global challenges. In Data Philanthropy:
Protecting Kids From Social Media Act
Protecting Kids on Social Media Act or HB 1891 is an American law that was introduced by William Lamberth of Sumner County, Tennessee and was signed into law by Tennessee's governor on May 2, 2024. The bill requires social media websites such as X, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and others to verify the age of users and if those users are under 18, they must have parental consent. == Progress == The law passed the Tennessee State Legislature with little opposition: the bill had only two no votes in the House from Aftyn Behn and Vincent B. Dixie, and it had zero no votes in the Senate. == Bill summary == Every social media company must verify the age of new users after the law takes effect, and if the user had created an account before the law took effect, they must verify the age of the person attempting to access the account within 14 days. If the new user or the user who originally owned an account is under 18 years of age, they must get parental consent and the third party or social media company must not retain the data from the age verification process or obtaining parental consent. Parents who are account holders of those under 18 can view the privacy settings, set daily time restrictions, and implement breaks during which the minor cannot access the account. The law is enforced by the Attorney General of Tennessee and went into effect on January 1, 2025. == Lawsuit == On October 3, 2024, the trade association NetChoice filed a lawsuit against Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti in the Middle District Court of Tennessee, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment. The Judge for the case is William L. Campbell Jr. An initial case management conference was originally scheduled for December 4, 2024, however it was delayed because of the Supreme Court case United States v. Skrmetti, recommending that the conference be delayed after January 20, 2025. On February 14, 2025, Judge Eli Richardson denied NetChoice's motion for a temporary restraining order because it would disrupt the status quo of the case.
Content repository
A content repository or content store is a database of digital content with an associated set of data management, search and access methods allowing application-independent access to the content, rather like a digital library, but with the ability to store and modify content in addition to searching and retrieving. The content repository acts as the storage engine for a larger application such as a content management system or a document management system, which adds a user interface on top of the repository's application programming interface. == Advantages provided by repositories == Common rules for data access allow many applications to work with the same content without interrupting the data. They give out signals when changes happen, letting other applications using the repository know that something has been modified, which enables collaborative data management. Developers can deal with data using programs that are more compatible with the desktop programming environment. The data model is scriptable when users use a content repository. == Content repository features == A content repository may provide functionality such as: Add/edit/delete content Hierarchy and sort order management Query / search Versioning Access control Import / export Locking Life-cycle management Retention and holding / records management == Examples == Apache Jackrabbit ModeShape == Applications == Content management Document management Digital asset management Records management Revision control Social collaboration Web content management == Standards and specification == Content repository API for Java WebDAV Content Management Interoperability Services
Neurocomputing (journal)
Neurocomputing is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural computation. It was established in 1989 and is published by Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Zidong Wang (Brunel University London). Independent scientometric studies noted that despite being one of the most productive journals in the field, it has kept its reputation across the years intact and plays an important role in leading the research in the area. The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, its 2023 impact factor is 5.5.
Defence Information Infrastructure
Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) is a secure military network owned by the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence MOD. It is used by all branches of the armed forces, including the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force as well as MOD civil servants. It reaches to deployed bases and ships at sea, but not to aircraft in flight. In 2000, the MOD began to plan the systems replacement project. In March 2005, the MOD gave a contract to the Atlas Consortium, with EDS as prime contractor, for installation and management over 10 years. That has developed into a consortium made up of DXC Technology (formerly EDS), Fujitsu, Airbus Defence and Space (formerly EADS Defence & Security) and CGI (formerly Logica). Starting in May 2016, MOD users of DII begin to migrate to the New Style of IT within the defence to be known as MODNET; again supported by ATLAS. == Overview == DII supports 2,000 MOD sites with some 150,000 terminals (desktops and laptops) and 300,000 user accounts. It is designed to offer a high level of resilience, flexibility, and security in the provision of connectivity from ‘business space to battlespace’ in MOD offices in the UK, bases overseas, at sea, and on the front line. It aims to rationalise and improve IT provision for the defence sector in the 21st century; involving a major culture change for MOD users and their ways of working through a structure of shared working areas with controlled security and access. It should provide a records management system and search facility together with a range of office services. It hosts several hundred COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) and bespoke MOD applications from a range of suppliers judged to meet the required security standards. The network handles alphanumeric data, graphics, and video. The system carries information from Restricted to above-Secret levels, but users are able to see only the data and applications for which they are authorised. == Incremental approach == In order to de-risk the programme Atlas and the MOD took an incremental approach to the development and implementation of DII, with a separate contract for each increment. The extended timeline allowed the MOD flexibility in defining its requirements. Increment 1: Contract awarded March 2005. This covered 70,000 user access devices (UADs) and 200,000 user accounts in the Restricted and Secret domains in 680 fixed locations. Increment 2a: Contract awarded December 2006. This was for an additional 44,000 UADs and 58,000 user accounts in the Restricted and Secret domains, again in fixed locations. Increment 2b: Contract awarded September 2007: This extended DII(F) into the deployed environment with the provision of UADs to support land and maritime deployed operations. Increment 2c: Signed in January 2009. This extended the DII footprint into the above-Secret domain to support a number of key operations and intelligence initiatives. Increment 3a: Contract awarded January 2010. Atlas provided 42,000 UADs operating in the Restricted and Secret domains to the remaining MOD fixed sites. This supported some 60,000 personnel, notably within the RAF, at Joint Helicopter Command and other MOD locations. Increment 3a received an MOD Chief of Defence Materiel commendation. == Costs and transparency == The Ministry of Defence informed Parliament the system would cost £2.3bn, even though it knew the cost would be at least £5.8bn. By 2008 the programme was running at least 18 months late; had delivered only 29,000 of a contracted 63,000 terminals; and had delivered none of the contracted Secret capability. In January 2010 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence announced that the Ministry of Defence had authorised DII increment 3a at a cost of around £540 million to provide 42,000 terminals within the RAF and at Joint Helicopter Command. He stated that the project would deliver "benefits" worth over £1.6 billion over the 10 years of the contract. That year the project was scheduled to cost at least £7bn, however, the UK government said it might attempt to reduce this sum. By 2014 the rollout of all UK terminals was complete and a refresh of the original desktops and printers to new hardware underway. The overseas rollout was coming to an end and well over half the fleet, including aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, equipped. The final part of Secret capability deployment was scheduled to complete in summer of 2014.