If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||||||||||||||||
![]() Journal of Empirical Legal StudiesVolume 4 Issue 4, Pages 1007 - 1039 Published Online: 10 Dec 2007 © 2009 Cornell Law School and Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 206K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research Copyright ©2007, Copyright the Authors; Journal compilation ©2007, Cornell Law School and Blackwell Publishing, Inc. ABSTRACTPolitical scientists in general and public law specialists in particular have only recently begun to exploit text classification using machine learning techniques to enable the reliable and detailed content analysis of political/legal documents on a large scale. This article provides an overview and assessment of this methodology. We describe the basics of text classification, suggest applications of the technique to enhance empirical legal research (and political science more broadly), and report results of experiments designed to test the strengths and weaknesses of alternative approaches for classifying the positions and interpreting the content of advocacy briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. We find that the Wordscores method (introduced by Laver et al. 2003), and various models using a Naïve Bayes classifier, perform well at accurately classifying the ideological direction of amicus curiae briefs submitted in the Bakke (1978) and Bollinger (2003) affirmative action cases. We also find that automated feature selection techniques can enable the detection of disparate issue conceptualizations by opposing sides in a single case, and facilitate analysis of relative linguistic "reliance" and "dominance" over time. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results and pointing to areas where technical and infrastructure improvements are most needed. |
|
|
IT'S TIME TO RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP
|
![]()
|
![]() | |||||||||||