Automation of legal sensemaking in e-discovery

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 431-457

  Hogan, Christopher ^a   Bauer, Robert S ^a   Brassil, Dan ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

E discovery; Information retrieval; Sensemaking

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE APPROACH; COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED; DOCUMENT REVIEW; E-DISCOVERY; HIGH PRECISION; INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS; LEGAL REASONING; SEARCH TASKS; SEMI-AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS; SENSEMAKING; SOCIOTECHNICAL;

COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; JOB ANALYSIS; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

SEARCH ENGINES;

EID: 79951771266     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: 15728382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-010-9100-1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bauer RS, Jade T, Hedin B, Hogan C (2008) Automated legal sensemaking: The centrality of relevance and intentionality. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on supporting search and sensemaking for electronically stored information in discovery proceedings (DESI II)
2. Bauer RS, Brassil D, Hogan C, Taranto G, Brown JS (2009) Impedance matching of humans,machines in high-Q information retrieval systems. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics
3. Belkin N (1980) Anomolous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Can J Inf Sci 5:133-143
4. Blair DC, Maron ME (1985) An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document retrieval system. Commun ACM 28(3):289-299 (Pubitemid 15599385)
5. Card SK (2005) The science of analytical reasoning. In: Illuminating the path: The research and development agenda for visual analytics. National Visualization and Analytics Center, Richland, WA. http://nvac.pnl.gov/agenda. stm#book. Accessed 20 Dec 2009
6. Cormack GV, Mojdeh M (2010) Machine learning for information retrieval: TREC 2009 web, relevance feedback and legal tracks. In: The eighteenth text retrieval conference (TREC 2009) proceedings
7. Dervin B (1983) An overview of sense-making research: Concepts methods and results. Presented at the International Communication Association annual meeting, Dallas
8. Dervin B (1992) From the mind's eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In: Glazier JD, Powell RR (eds) Qualitative research in information management. Libraries Unlimited CO, Englewood, pp 61-84
9. EDRM (2010) Electronic discovery reference model. http://edrm.net/. Accessed 4 Jan 2010
10. Fein BE, Merrell BL, Nelson FE (2010) Backstop LLP and Cleary Gottlied Steen and Hamilton LLP at TREC legal track 2009. In: The eighteenth text retrieval conference (TREC 2009) proceedings
11. Hogan C, Brassil D, Rugani SM, Reinhart J, Gerber M, Jade T (2009) H5 at TREC 2008 legal interactive: User modeling, assessment & measurement. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth text retrieval conference proceedings (TREC 2008)
12. Kershaw A (2005) Automated document review proves its reliability. Digit Discov Evid 5(11):10-12
13. Klein G, Phillips JK, Rall EL, Peluso DA (2006a) A data-frame theory of sensemaking. In: Expertise out of context: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on naturalistic decision making
14. Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006b) Making sense of sensemaking 2: A macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell Syst 21(5):88-92 (Pubitemid 44550026)
15. Koenemann J, Belkin NJ (1996) A case for interaction: A study of interactive information retrieval behavior and effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the human factors in computing systems conference (CHI'96). ACM Press, New York
16. Kuropka D (2004) Modelle zur Repräsentation natü rlichsprachlicher Dokumente. Ontologie-basiertes Information-Filtering und -Retrieval mit relationalen Datenbanken. Advances in information systems and management science, Bd. 10. Logos Verlag, Berlin
17. Lewis DD (1998) Naive (Bayes) at forty: The independence assumption in information retrieval. In: Proceedings ECML, pp 4-15. Springer
18. Linderman A (2005) Using sense-making methodology in legal and law enforcement investigations. Presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, New York City
19. Marchionini G (2006) Toward human-computer information retrieval. In: June/July 2006 bulletin of the American society for information science
20. Marcus S et al. (eds) (2004) Manual for complex litigation, fourth. Federal Judicial Center
21. Oard DW, Hedin B, Tomlinson S, Baron JR (2009) Overview of the TREC 2008 legal track. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth text retrieval conference proceedings (TREC 2008)
22. Rangan V, Jiang M (2010) Clearwell systems at TREC 2009 legal interactive. In: The eighteenth text retrieval conference (TREC 2009) proceedings
23. Roitblat HL, Kershaw A, Oot P (2010) Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: Computer classification vs manual review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61(1):1-11
24. Rosenfeld L, Morville P (2002) Information architecture for the World Wide Web, 2nd edn. O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol
25. Russell DM, Stefik MJ, Pirolli PL, Card SK (1993) The cost structure of sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 269-276
26. Saracevic T, Spink A, Wu MW (2007) Users and intermediaries in information retrieval: What are they talking about? In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on user modeling (UM97), pp 43-54
27. Schaffer TL, Elkins JR (1987) Legal interviewing and counseling in a nutshell, 2nd edn. West Publishing, Rochester
28. Sterenzy T (2010) EQUIVIO at TREC 2009 legal interactive. in the eighteenth text retrieval conference (TREC 2009) proceedings
29. Takayama L, Card SK (2008) Tracing the microstructure of sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2008 workshop on sensemaking
30. Thompson P, Turtle H, Yang B, Flood J (1995) TREC-3 Ad Hoc retrieval and routing experiments using the WIN System. In Proceedings of the third text retrieval conference (TREC-3)
31. Voorhees EM, Harman DK (2005) TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
32. Wang J, Coles C, Elliot R, Adrianakou S (2010a) ZL technologies at TREC 2009 legal interactive: Comparing exclusionary and investigative approaches for electronic discovery using the TREC Enron Corpus. In The eighteenth text retrieval conference (TREC 2009) proceedings
33. Wang J, Sun Y, Thompson P (2010b) TREC 2009 at the University of Buffalo: Interactive legal e-discovery with Enron Emails. In the eighteenth text retrieval conference (TREC 2009) proceedings
34. Willgang TE, Shapard J, Sienstra D, Miletich D (1997) Discovery and disclosure practice, problems, and proposals for change: A case-based national survey of counsel in closed federal civil cases. Reports on discovery for the advisory committee on civil rules of the judicial conference of the United States, federal judicial center