-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Browse files
Browse the repository at this point in the history
Co-authored-by: jsl-models <74001263+jsl-models@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: gadde5300 <gadde5300@gmail.com>
- Loading branch information
1 parent
0a40917
commit 639fd14
Showing
1 changed file
with
120 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ | ||
--- | ||
layout: model | ||
title: Legal Subpoena Classification | ||
author: John Snow Labs | ||
name: legclf_subpoena | ||
date: 2023-06-05 | ||
tags: [en, legal, subpoena, licensed, tensorflow] | ||
task: Text Classification | ||
language: en | ||
edition: Legal NLP 1.0.0 | ||
spark_version: 3.0 | ||
supported: true | ||
engine: tensorflow | ||
annotator: LegalBertForSequenceClassification | ||
article_header: | ||
type: cover | ||
use_language_switcher: "Python-Scala-Java" | ||
--- | ||
|
||
## Description | ||
|
||
This is a multiclass classification model designed to determine the category of a section within a subpoena. The model can identify various classes, including `ATTACHMENT`, `INSTRUCTION`, `ARGUMENT`, `DEFINITION`, `REQUEST_FOR_ISSUANCE_OF_SUBPOENA`, `NOTIFICATION`, `DOCUMENT_REQUEST`, `PRELIMINARY_STATEMENT`, `CERTIFICATE_OF_SERVICE`, `STATEMENT_OF_FACTS`, `CONCLUSION`, `BACKGROUND`, `CERTIFICATE_OF_FILING`, `INTRODUCTION`, `DECLARATION` . A subpoena is a formal document issued by a court, grand jury, legislative body or committee, or authorized administrative agency. It commands an individual to appear at a specific time and provide testimony, either orally or in writing, regarding the matter specified in the document. | ||
|
||
## Predicted Entities | ||
|
||
`ATTACHMENT`, `INSTRUCTION`, `ARGUMENT`, `DEFINITION`, `REQUEST_FOR_ISSUANCE_OF_SUBPOENA`, `NOTIFICATION`, `DOCUMENT_REQUEST`, `PRELIMINARY_STATEMENT`, `CERTIFICATE_OF_SERVICE`, `STATEMENT_OF_FACTS`, `CONCLUSION`, `BACKGROUND`, `CERTIFICATE_OF_FILING`, `INTRODUCTION`, `DECLARATION` | ||
|
||
{:.btn-box} | ||
<button class="button button-orange" disabled>Live Demo</button> | ||
<button class="button button-orange" disabled>Open in Colab</button> | ||
[Download](https://s3.amazonaws.com/auxdata.johnsnowlabs.com/legal/models/legclf_subpoena_en_1.0.0_3.0_1685989784048.zip){:.button.button-orange.button-orange-trans.arr.button-icon.hidden} | ||
[Copy S3 URI](s3://auxdata.johnsnowlabs.com/legal/models/legclf_subpoena_en_1.0.0_3.0_1685989784048.zip){:.button.button-orange.button-orange-trans.button-icon.button-copy-s3} | ||
|
||
## How to use | ||
|
||
|
||
|
||
<div class="tabs-box" markdown="1"> | ||
{% include programmingLanguageSelectScalaPythonNLU.html %} | ||
```python | ||
documentAssembler = nlp.DocumentAssembler() \ | ||
.setInputCol("text") \ | ||
.setOutputCol("document") | ||
|
||
tokenizer = nlp.Tokenizer() \ | ||
.setInputCols(["document"]) \ | ||
.setOutputCol("token") | ||
|
||
seq_classifier = legal.BertForSequenceClassification.pretrained("legclf_subpoena", "en", "legal/models") \ | ||
.setInputCols(["document", "token"]) \ | ||
.setOutputCol("class") | ||
|
||
pipeline = nlp.Pipeline(stages=[documentAssembler, tokenizer, seq_classifier]) | ||
|
||
empty_data = spark.createDataFrame([[""]]).toDF("text") | ||
|
||
model = pipeline.fit(empty_data) | ||
|
||
result = model.transform(spark.createDataFrame(data).toDF("text")) | ||
|
||
result.select("text", "class.result").show(truncate=False) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
</div> | ||
|
||
## Results | ||
|
||
```bash | ||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+ | ||
|text |result | | ||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+ | ||
|The Defendant filed a response opposing the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on November 15, 2023. The Defendant argues that there are genuine issues of material fact that should be decided by a jury, including disputes regarding the condition of the premises and the Plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence.The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, supporting evidence, and legal arguments presented by both parties. The Court held a hearing on December 5, 2023, to consider the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and to address any outstanding procedural matters. |[BACKGROUND]| | ||
|As the evidence in question was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, it is tainted and should be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.D. Exclusionary RuleThe exclusionary rule is a vital tool for safeguarding individuals' Fourth Amendment rights and deterring law enforcement misconduct.Suppressing the unlawfully obtained evidence in this case would serve the purpose of the exclusionary rule by deterring future unlawful searches and seizures.Allowing the introduction of unlawfully obtained evidence would undermine the Fourth Amendment's protections and erode public trust in law enforcement.|[ARGUMENT] | | ||
|Sample Case: The Plaintiff claims strict liability against the Defendant, who owns a wild animal sanctuary. The Plaintiff argues that they were attacked and injured by one of the animals under the Defendant's care. Strict liability imposes liability on the Defendant without the need to prove negligence, as the ownership and management of wild animals are recognized as inherently dangerous activities."Intentional Tort" shall encompass a deliberate or intentional act by one party that causes harm or injury to another, resulting in legal liability and potential claims for damages. |[DEFINITION]| | ||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+ | ||
``` | ||
{:.model-param} | ||
## Model Information | ||
{:.table-model} | ||
|---|---| | ||
|Model Name:|legclf_subpoena| | ||
|Compatibility:|Legal NLP 1.0.0+| | ||
|License:|Licensed| | ||
|Edition:|Official| | ||
|Input Labels:|[document, token]| | ||
|Output Labels:|[class]| | ||
|Language:|en| | ||
|Size:|403.0 MB| | ||
|Case sensitive:|true| | ||
|Max sentence length:|512| | ||
## References | ||
In house annotated data | ||
## Benchmarking | ||
```bash | ||
label precision recall f1-score support | ||
ARGUMENT 0.96 0.78 0.86 32 | ||
ATTACHMENT 0.90 0.93 0.92 41 | ||
BACKGROUND 0.87 0.92 0.89 37 | ||
CERTIFICATE_OF_FILING 1.00 0.90 0.95 29 | ||
CERTIFICATE_OF_SERVICE 0.84 0.90 0.87 29 | ||
CONCLUSION 1.00 1.00 1.00 36 | ||
DECLARATION 0.86 1.00 0.93 25 | ||
DEFINITION 0.97 1.00 0.99 35 | ||
DOCUMENT_REQUEST 0.96 0.93 0.95 75 | ||
INSTRUCTION 0.99 0.97 0.98 73 | ||
INTRODUCTION 0.94 1.00 0.97 48 | ||
NOTIFICATION 1.00 0.97 0.99 34 | ||
PRELIMINARY_STATEMENT 0.96 1.00 0.98 45 | ||
REQUEST_FOR_ISSUANCE_OF_SUBPOENA 1.00 0.98 0.99 42 | ||
STATEMENT_OF_FACTS 1.00 0.98 0.99 49 | ||
accuracy - - 0.95 630 | ||
macro-avg 0.95 0.95 0.95 630 | ||
weighted-avg 0.96 0.95 0.95 630 | ||
``` |