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
Yorba (software)
Yorba is a web-based personal information management platform for finding, monitoring, or deleting online accounts and subscriptions. Yorba is a participating member of Consumer Reports’ Data Rights Protocol (DRP) consortium that develops open technical standards for exercising consumer data rights under laws including the California Consumer Privacy Act. == History == Yorba began as a research project around 2021. It was founded by Chris Zeunstrom (CEO), Nolan Cabeje (CDO) and David Schmudde (CTO). Zeunstrom says he began developing Yorba after growing frustrated with managing numerous email accounts, noting overloaded inboxes create distraction and potential security vulnerabilities. Yorba’s early development was also influenced by security issues he encountered at a previous company, which had been affected by data breaches at a time when such incidents were becoming increasingly common. In 2023, Yorba launched a private beta as a public benefit corporation funded through a give-back model operated by Zeunstrom's New York-based design firm, Ruca. In January 2024, Yorba entered public beta and reported over 1,000 users, including 160 premium subscribers. At the time of the public beta launch, Yorba integrated with Gmail and announced plans to expand compatibility to other online services and cloud storage providers. In September 2024, Yorba completed conformance testing under the Data Rights Protocol, an initiative developed by Consumer Reports, to establish a standard and open-source framework for securely transmitting consumer data rights requests under laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act. Yorba was named among twelve participating companies that implemented the protocol alongside OneTrust and Consumer Reports’ own Permission Slip app. Yorba was one of nine startups selected as 2025 finalist in the Santander X Global Awards international entrepreneurship competition. == Features == Yorba scans user inbox history data to identify online accounts, mailing lists, and possible data breaches. It uses natural language processing and machine learning to identify a user's accounts, services, and subscriptions. The platform prompts password resets for compromised accounts and locates unused accounts. The platform also supports mailing list management by identifying and helping users unsubscribe from newsletters. Paid subscribers can locate and cancel recurring charges. Yorba links with financial institutions in the U.S., Canada, and EU via Plaid Inc. to detect recurring charges and delete unwanted subscriptions. == Privacy and Ethics == Yorba's founder has openly criticized dark patterns that make canceling services difficult, citing personal frustration with inbox clutter as part of his inspiration for Yorba. Yorba offers privacy policy analysis in partnership with Amsterdam-based nonprofit Terms of Service; Didn’t Read, assigning grades based on invasiveness or ethical concerns. As of 2024, the company described its pricing as designed to cover operational costs and sustain the platform without outside investment.
Dr. Sbaitso
Dr. Sbaitso ( SPAYT-soh) is an artificial intelligence speech synthesis program released late in 1991 by Creative Labs in Singapore for MS-DOS-based personal computers. The name is an acronym for "SoundBlaster Acting Intelligent Text-to-Speech Operator." == History == Dr. Sbaitso was distributed with various sound cards manufactured by Creative Technology in the early 1990s. The text-to-speech engine used is a version of Monologue, which was developed by First Byte Software. Monologue is a later release of First Byte's "SmoothTalker" software from 1984. The program "conversed" with the user as if it were a psychologist, though most of its responses were along the lines of "WHY DO YOU FEEL THAT WAY?" rather than any sort of complicated interaction. When confronted with a phrase it could not understand, it would often reply with something such as "THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM." Dr. Sbaitso repeated text out loud that was typed after the word "SAY." Repeated swearing or abusive behavior on the part of the user caused Dr. Sbaitso to "break down" in a "PARITY ERROR" before resetting itself. The same would happen, if the user types "SAY PARITY." The program introduced itself with the following lines: HELLO [UserName], MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO. I AM HERE TO HELP YOU. SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY, OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE. MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE, SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS. The program was designed to showcase the digitized voices the cards were able to produce, though the quality was far from lifelike. Additionally, there was a version of this program for Microsoft Windows through the use of a program called Prody Parrot; this version of the software featured a more detailed graphical user interface. The text-to-speech was also used as the voice of 1st Prize from the Baldi's Basics series, albeit slowed down. == Commands == If the user submits "HELP", a list of commands will appear. If the user then submits "M", more commands will appear. There are three pages of commands in total, with guidance on how to use each of the features.
Google Mobile Services
Google Mobile Services (GMS) is a collection of proprietary applications and application programming interfaces (APIs) services from Google that are typically pre-installed on the majority of Android devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and smart TVs. GMS is not a part of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which means an Android manufacturer needs to obtain a license from Google in order to legally pre-install GMS on an Android device. This license is provided by Google without any licensing fees except in the EU. == Core applications == The following are core applications that are part of Google Mobile Services: Google Search Google Chrome YouTube Google Play Google Drive Gmail Google Meet Google Maps Google Photos Google TV YouTube Music === Historically === Google+ Google Hangouts Google Wallet Google Play Magazines Google Play Music Google Play Movies & TV Google Duo == Reception, competitors, and regulators == === FairSearch === Numerous European firms filed a complaint to the European Commission stating that Google had manipulated their power and dominance within the market to push their Services to be used by phone manufacturers. The firms were joined under the name FairSearch, and the main firms included were Microsoft, Expedia, TripAdvisor, Nokia and Oracle. FairSearch's major problem with Google's practices was that they believed Google were forcing phone manufacturers to use their Mobile Services. They claimed Google managed this by asking these manufacturers to sign a contract stating that they must preinstall specific Google Mobile Services, such as Maps, Search and YouTube, in order to get the latest version of Android. Google swiftly responded stating that they "continue to work co-operatively with the European Commission". === Aptoide === The third-party Android app store Aptoide also filed an EU competition complaint against Google once again stating that they are misusing their power within the market. Aptoide alleged that Google was blocking third-party app stores from being on Google Play, as well as blocking Google Chrome from downloading any third-party apps and app stores. As of June 2014, Google had not responded to these allegations. === Abuse of Android dominance === In May 2019, Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Ors. the Competition Commission of India ordered an antitrust probe against Google for abusing its dominant position with Android to block market rivals. In Prima Facie opinion the commission held that mandatory pre-installation of the entire Google Mobile Services (GMS) suite, under Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA), amounts to the imposition of unfair conditions on the device manufacturers. === EU antitrust ruling === On July 18, 2018, the European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules which resulted in a change of licensing policy for the GMS in the EU. A new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the EEA was created. The change is that the GMS is now decoupled from the base Android and will be offered under a separate paid licensing agreement. === Privacy policy === At the same time, Google faced problems with various European data protection agencies, most notably In the United Kingdom and France. The problem they faced was that they had a set of 60 rules merged into one, which allowed Google to "track users more closely". Google once again came out and stated that their new policies still abide by European Union laws. === Android distributions without Google Mobile Services === After surveillance and privacy concerns, several custom android distributions have been implemented, such as GrapheneOS, LineageOS, CalyxOS, iodéOS or /e/OS, and they come either without any GMS installed by default or with microG, that adds a compatibility layer.
Arabic Ontology
Arabic Ontology is a website offering linguistic ontology services for the Arabic language which can be used like the online site WordNet. Users can use Arabic Ontology to classify or clarify the concepts and meanings of Arabic terms. == Ontology Structure == The ontology structure (i.e., data model) is similar to WordNet's structure. Each concept in the database is given a unique concept identifier (URI), informally described by a gloss, and lexicalized by one or more synonymous lemma terms. Each term-concept pair is called a sense, and is given a SenseID. A set of senses is called synset. Concepts and senses are described by further attributes such as era and area — to specify example usage and ontological analysis. Semantic relations are defined between concepts. Some important entities are included in the ontology, such as individual countries and bodies of water. These individuals are given separate IndividualIDs and linked with their concepts through the InstanceOf relation. == Mappings to other resources == Concepts in the Arabic Ontology are mapped to synsets in WordNet, as well as to BFO and DOLCE. Terms used in the Arabic Ontology are mapped to lemmas in the LDC's SAMA database. == Applications == Arabic Ontology can be used in many application domains, such as: Information retrieval, to enrich queries (e.g., in search engines) and improve the quality of the results, i.e. meaningful search rather than string-matching search; Machine translation and word-sense disambiguation, by finding the exact mapping of concepts across languages, especially that the Arabic ontology is also mapped to the WordNet; Data Integration and interoperability in which the Arabic ontology can be used as a semantic reference to link databases and information systems; Semantic Web and Web 3.0, by using the Arabic ontology as a semantic reference to disambiguate the meanings used in websites; among many other applications. == URLs Design == The URLs in the Arabic Ontology are designed according to the W3C's Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data, as described in the following URL schemes. This allows one to also explore the whole database like exploring a graph: Ontology Concept: Each concept in the Arabic Ontology has a ConceptID and can be accessed using: https://{domain}/concept/{ConceptID | Term}. In case of a term, the set of concepts that this term lexicalizes are all retrieved. In case of a ConceptID, the concept and its direct subtypes are retrieved, e.g. https://ontology.birzeit.edu/concept/293198 Semantic relations: Relationships between concepts can be accessed using these schemes: (i) the URL: https:// {domain}/concept/{RelationName}/{ConceptID} allows retrieval of relationships among ontology concepts. (ii) the URL: https://{domain}/lexicalconcept/{RelationName}/{lexicalConceptID} allows retrieval of relations between lexical concepts. For example, https://ontology.birzeit.edu/concept/instances/293121 retrieves the instances of the concept 293121. The relations that are currently used in our database are: {subtypes, type, instances, parts, related, similar, equivalent}.
CLEVER score
The CLEVER (Cross Lipschitz Extreme Value for nEtwork Robustness) score is a way of measuring the robustness of an artificial neural network towards adversarial attacks. It was developed by a team at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab in IBM Research and first presented at the 2018 International Conference on Learning Representations. It was mentioned and reviewed by Ian Goodfellow as well. It was adopted into an educational game Fool The Bank by Narendra Nath Joshi, Abhishek Bhandwaldar and Casey Dugan
Application enablement
Application enablement is an approach which brings telecommunications network providers and developers together to combine their network and web abilities in creating and delivering high demand advanced services and new intelligent applications. Network providers, in addition to bandwidth, provide abilities such as billing, location, presence, and security, which have allowed them to establish long-term relationships with end-users. By offering these select abilities as application programming interfaces (APIs), providers give developers access to a set of tools to create (mashup) new applications and services to run on provider networks. Unifying the strengths of providers and developers facilitates the creation of mash-up applications, and in turn, a better end user quality of experience (QoE) for improved profit margins. Apple's iOS with App Store, and Google's Android with Android Market exemplify this approach. Both have introduced mobile platforms that are supported by a comprehensive ecosystem in order to perpetuate innovation in product design, content and service offerings, and overall consumer behavior. By the end of April 2010, downloadable applications numbered over 200,000 for iPhone and over 50,000 for Android. == Background == Historically, telecommunication providers primarily based their business models on network performance, emphasizing connectivity, availability, and quality of service (QoS) as key sources of revenue and customer value. With the increasing demand for bandwidth-intensive data and video applications, maintaining service continuity has required substantial infrastructure investments. To address rising operational costs and declining average revenue per user (ARPU), providers have increasingly adopted customer-oriented strategies and diversified business models to expand their roles within the telecommunications value chain. Application enablement supports providers in making this transition by providing an environment, or ecosystem, where providers and developers can collaborate to build, test, manage, and distribute applications across networks including television, broadband, Internet, and mobile. This cooperative effort produces mutually beneficial results for all parties, opening up new revenue streams while enhancing value and rate of return (ROI). The following are some examples of key network abilities which function as application enablers in the telecommunications market: Billing systems Security for private transactions Network-based storage of digital content End-to-end bandwidth for high-quality transmissions Scoring abilities to identify end-user preferences and behaviors Subscriber data to customize the end-user experience Context information, such as location and presence, to localize services. == New business models == As network providers work toward effective collaboration with application and content developers, several new business models are emerging to help facilitate the business relationships: === Vendor-led === A type of business model driven by telecommunications vendors, who assist network providers in building relationships with application and content developers to lower the cost and complexity of managing third parties. Examples of this model include: Forum Nokia IBM Technology Partner Ecosystem Ng Connect Huawei Intouch program === Operator-led === Characterized by network providers who want to maintain a high degree of flexibility and control over applications created for their end-consumers, this model lets them create and manage their own developer program, development platform, and application store. Under this arrangement, independent developers provide their own branding, marketing communications, pricing and customer care. Network providers pursuing this model will often seek to partner with a large number of third parties using standardized on-boarding processes. Examples of this model include: o2 Litmus Orange Partner Joint Innovation Lab === Aggregator === Network providers who choose not to create/manage their own developer relationships will partner with one or multiple aggregators, to administer a portion of or their entire application strategy. Examples of this model include: Ovi Operator Partnership Blackberry Operator Partnership Cellmania Buongiorno === Mass wholesale === Select network providers also participate in wholesale models that exist primarily for applications (BT's Ribbit- an Internet Protocol (IP) based calling and messaging platform) and devices (Verizon's Open Device initiative). This business-to-business approach reduces a large portion of the potential costs of third party application enablement (marketing, acquisition and support). Examples of this model include: BT's Ribbit Verizon Wireless ODI AT&T Synaptic Hosting === The enterprise customer === Some network providers are focusing on enabling applications in the enterprise space. In this model, the network provider establishes a platform for their large enterprise customers who want to blend custom software with enhanced abilities, and will provide standardized processes around mobilizing enterprise applications, and exposing core back-office abilities to allow for dynamic customer interaction. Examples of this model include: Vodafone Applications Service Verizon Private Network Sprint Solution Launchpad === Trusted partner === In this model, the network provider builds one-on-one relationships with trusted third-party developers by exposing customized network abilities, bringing a greater variety of brands to the network provider's portfolio. Network providers using this model tend to only have a few partners (in contrast to the operator led model). Under this scenario, network providers benefit from a pre-established customer base and the developer's marketing resources. Examples of this model include: 3/Skype Partnership (UK) Virgin Media and BBC iPlayer == Network operator developer resources == Operator led model o2 Litmus Orange Partner Joint Innovations Lab Aggregator model Ovi Operator Partnership Cellmania Buongiorno Mass wholesale model BT Ribbit Verizon Wireless ODI AT&T Synaptic Hosting Enterprise customer model Vodafone Applications Service Verizon Private Network Sprint Solution Launchpad == Rerencesfe ==