Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: computer classification vs. manual review
Identifieur interne : 000725 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 000724; suivant : 000726Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: computer classification vs. manual review
Auteurs : Herbert L. Roitblat [États-Unis] ; Anne Kershaw [États-Unis] ; Patrick Oot [États-Unis]Source :
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology [ 1532-2882 ] ; 2010-01.
Abstract
In litigation in the US, the parties are obligated to produce to one another, when requested, those documents that are potentially relevant to issues and facts of the litigation (called “discovery”). As the volume of electronic documents continues to grow, the expense of dealing with this obligation threatens to surpass the amounts at issue and the time to identify these relevant documents can delay a case for months or years. The same holds true for government investigations and third‐parties served with subpoenas. As a result, litigants are looking for ways to reduce the time and expense of discovery. One approach is to supplant or reduce the traditional means of having people, usually attorneys, read each document, with automated procedures that use information retrieval and machine categorization to identify the relevant documents. This study compared an original categorization, obtained as part of a response to a Department of Justice Request and produced by having one or more of 225 attorneys review each document with automated categorization systems provided by two legal service providers. The goal was to determine whether the automated systems could categorize documents at least as well as human reviewers could, thereby saving time and expense. The results support the idea that machine categorization is no less accurate at identifying relevant/responsive documents than employing a team of reviewers. Based on these results, it would appear that using machine categorization can be a reasonable substitute for human review.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21233
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 000311
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 000306
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 000305
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 000730
- to stream Main, to step Curation: 000725
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: computer classification vs. manual review</title><author><name sortKey="Roitblat, Herbert L" sort="Roitblat, Herbert L" uniqKey="Roitblat H" first="Herbert L." last="Roitblat">Herbert L. Roitblat</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kershaw, Anne" sort="Kershaw, Anne" uniqKey="Kershaw A" first="Anne" last="Kershaw">Anne Kershaw</name></author><author><name sortKey="Oot, Patrick" sort="Oot, Patrick" uniqKey="Oot P" first="Patrick" last="Oot">Patrick Oot</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:B26A805CA81CF0B83ABD87D63AAE56CFCF71CE4E</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/asi.21233</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/B26A805CA81CF0B83ABD87D63AAE56CFCF71CE4E/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000311</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">000306</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">000305</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">1532-2882:2010:Roitblat H:document:categorization:in</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">000730</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">000725</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">000725</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: computer classification vs. manual review</title><author><name sortKey="Roitblat, Herbert L" sort="Roitblat, Herbert L" uniqKey="Roitblat H" first="Herbert L." last="Roitblat">Herbert L. Roitblat</name><affiliation wicri:level="2"><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><placeName><region type="state">Californie</region></placeName><wicri:cityArea>Electronic Discovery Institute, OrcaTec LLC, PO Box 613, Ojai</wicri:cityArea></affiliation><affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="no comma">E-mail: herb@orcatec.com</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kershaw, Anne" sort="Kershaw, Anne" uniqKey="Kershaw A" first="Anne" last="Kershaw">Anne Kershaw</name><affiliation wicri:level="2"><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><placeName><region type="state">État de New York</region></placeName><wicri:cityArea>Electronic Discovery Institute, A. Kershaw, P.C. Attorneys & Consultants, 303 South Broadway, Suite 430, Tarrytown</wicri:cityArea></affiliation><affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="no comma">E-mail: anne.kershaw@akershaw.com</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Oot, Patrick" sort="Oot, Patrick" uniqKey="Oot P" first="Patrick" last="Oot">Patrick Oot</name><affiliation wicri:level="2"><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><placeName><region type="state">Virginie</region></placeName><wicri:cityArea>Electronic Discovery Institute, Verizon, 1320 North Courthouse Road, Arlington</wicri:cityArea></affiliation><affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="no comma">E-mail: patrick.oot@verizon.com</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.</title><idno type="ISSN">1532-2882</idno><idno type="eISSN">1532-2890</idno><imprint><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><pubPlace>Hoboken</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-01">2010-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">61</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="70">70</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="80">80</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1532-2882</idno></series><idno type="istex">B26A805CA81CF0B83ABD87D63AAE56CFCF71CE4E</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/asi.21233</idno><idno type="ArticleID">ASI21233</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1532-2882</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In litigation in the US, the parties are obligated to produce to one another, when requested, those documents that are potentially relevant to issues and facts of the litigation (called “discovery”). As the volume of electronic documents continues to grow, the expense of dealing with this obligation threatens to surpass the amounts at issue and the time to identify these relevant documents can delay a case for months or years. The same holds true for government investigations and third‐parties served with subpoenas. As a result, litigants are looking for ways to reduce the time and expense of discovery. One approach is to supplant or reduce the traditional means of having people, usually attorneys, read each document, with automated procedures that use information retrieval and machine categorization to identify the relevant documents. This study compared an original categorization, obtained as part of a response to a Department of Justice Request and produced by having one or more of 225 attorneys review each document with automated categorization systems provided by two legal service providers. The goal was to determine whether the automated systems could categorize documents at least as well as human reviewers could, thereby saving time and expense. The results support the idea that machine categorization is no less accurate at identifying relevant/responsive documents than employing a team of reviewers. Based on these results, it would appear that using machine categorization can be a reasonable substitute for human review.</div></front></TEI><affiliations><list><country><li>États-Unis</li></country><region><li>Californie</li><li>Virginie</li><li>État de New York</li></region></list><tree><country name="États-Unis"><region name="Californie"><name sortKey="Roitblat, Herbert L" sort="Roitblat, Herbert L" uniqKey="Roitblat H" first="Herbert L." last="Roitblat">Herbert L. Roitblat</name></region><name sortKey="Kershaw, Anne" sort="Kershaw, Anne" uniqKey="Kershaw A" first="Anne" last="Kershaw">Anne Kershaw</name><name sortKey="Oot, Patrick" sort="Oot, Patrick" uniqKey="Oot P" first="Patrick" last="Oot">Patrick Oot</name></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/OcrV1/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000725 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 000725 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= OcrV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:B26A805CA81CF0B83ABD87D63AAE56CFCF71CE4E
|texte= Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: computer classification vs. manual review
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |