REVIEW 1 cited by
DeepParliament: A Legal domain Benchmark & Dataset for Parliament Bills Prediction
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
This paper introduces DeepParliament, a legal domain Benchmark Dataset that gathers bill documents and metadata and performs various bill status classification tasks. The proposed dataset text covers a broad range of bills from 1986 to the present and contains richer information on parliament bill content. Data collection, detailed statistics and analyses are provided in the paper. Moreover, we experimented with different types of models ranging from RNN to pretrained and reported the results. We are proposing two new benchmarks: Binary and Multi-Class Bill Status classification. Models developed for bill documents and relevant supportive tasks may assist Members of Parliament (MPs), presidents, and other legal practitioners. It will help review or prioritise bills, thus speeding up the billing process, improving the quality of decisions and reducing the time consumption in both houses. Considering that the foundation of the country's democracy is Parliament and state legislatures, we anticipate that our research will be an essential addition to the Legal NLP community. This work will be the first to present a Parliament bill prediction task. In order to improve the accessibility of legal AI resources and promote reproducibility, we have made our code and dataset publicly accessible at github.com/monk1337/DeepParliament
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Framework of Voting Prediction of Parliament Members
A multi-country framework predicts individual parliamentary votes with up to 85% accuracy and bill outcomes with up to 84% accuracy, but the evaluation does not include trivial baselines.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.