standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
This record holds no relations between concepts or controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | semantics of legal expert systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | system-or-tool-building Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: system-or-tool-building | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The proposed alternative formalism is admittedly unfinished. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the proposed alternative formalism: THE WORK IS NOT YET COMPLETE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The intermediate Legol solution is acknowledged to be defective and not to function as a logic. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the intermediate Legol solution specifically: THIS INTERMEDIATE SOLUTION IS FULL OF DEFECTS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The intermediate solution still rests on the assumptions of the framework the paper criticises. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that the paper's own proposal escapes the problem it diagnoses: DESPITE THESE ADVANCES, THIS INTERMEDIATE SOLUTION FAILS TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE OLD, DEFECTIVE FRAMEWORK | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Formal logic does not supply the meanings it appears to encode: knowing what the predicates mean requires already knowing which individuals fall into the classes they name. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a legal rule encoded in predicate logic as a representation of its meaning: the paper states one must already assume knowledge of which individuals have the properties named by the predicates | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The reasoning the systems are meant to support is stated to be unmechanisable. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a legal expert system as a substitute for legal reasoning: the paper states much of the required reasoning needs creative thinking, judgment and accountability, and cannot be mechanised | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper relabels the systems to scope the claim, while explicitly not denying their value. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the label 'expert system' for these tools: the paper proposes 'bureaucratic expert systems' as the accurate description, while stating this does not deny their potential value | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper's central objection is put as a question about TRANSFER rather than as a demonstration: why expect a logic devised by mathematicians for their own work to move comfortably into law and other practical social affairs, which do not share its special properties. The argument is that the transfer was never licensed, not that a particular system was measured and failed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | Weber's ideal-type model of bureaucratic administration is applied to rule-based legal expert systems, which is what licenses the paper's reclassification of them as 'bureaucratic' rather than 'legal' expert systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concepts | bureaucratic expert systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bureaucratic expert systems | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | citizenship Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: citizenship | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | predicate logic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: predicate logic | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | fat predicates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fat predicates | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | semantics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantics | concepts[4] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| senses | citizenship - a concept whose MEANINGS MULTIPLY WITH ITS CRITERIA: it exists by virtue of several different criteria, and the paper says this gives rise to several different meanings Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | preservation of wording - a professional practice with a stated reason: lawyers keep forms of words that have survived judicial scrutiny, and see danger in casual reformulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | fat predicates - elongated symbols that resemble natural language and are given meaning by the analyst rather than by the system; the paper calls the habit the Humpty Dumpty syndrome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Susskind (1987), Expert Systems in Law Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Dworkin's argument from principles Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | A legal expert system built on propositional logic has essentially no semantics of its own: whoever assigns truth-values to the elementary propositions performs all the interpretation, and the machine merely computes consequences. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Propositional logic recognises no unit smaller than a whole proposition, not even individual words. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Predicate logic leaves the ontology to the analyst's discretion — the same content can be modelled either as a separate individual or folded into a longer predicate — so what exists in the knowledge base is decided arbitrarily. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Two engineers formalising the same legal concept in predicate logic arrive at an identical expression only by happy accident. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Because each application invents its own private predicate language, separate legal knowledge bases cannot be integrated by simply merging their rules. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | In a legal dispute, truth is reached at the end of the process rather than given at its start. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Existence here-and-now takes the place of truth as the primitive concept, because existence is easy to operationalise. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The logic always points to the agents in the social system who are responsible for using the constructs the formalism expresses. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | In Norma an open system is the only possible representation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The resulting method of analysis proved effective in designing systems cheaper to build and far cheaper to maintain than conventionally developed ones. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | bureaucratic expert systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bureaucratic expert systems | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the conduit metaphor of language Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the conduit metaphor of language | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | fat predicates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fat predicates | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | realisation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: realisation | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | norm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: norm | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ontology chart Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ontology chart | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Norma Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Norma | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | MEASUR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MEASUR | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | semantic unit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic unit | content_tags.definitions[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | epistemological principles Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: epistemological principles | content_tags.definitions[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ontological dependent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ontological dependent | content_tags.definitions[13] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ontological antecedent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ontological antecedent | content_tags.definitions[14] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | six pages ... 270 pages — space Twining and Myers devote to deductive reasoning in their 270-page book on legal rules, cited as evidence that deduction is only a small part of legal argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.