http://ow.ly/681Gx
This is an article by Douglas Forrest on the ILSteam.com website.
This article focuses on a study undertaken by Maura R. Grossman and Gordon V. Cormack. The link to the complete study and the results it provides is provided in the article.
The study being discussed analyzed the results of attorney reviews done primarily through the use of advanced technology and compared the results to a more traditional attorney review.
"The study examines the 2009 interactive task, which was used the Enron e-mail dataset “ to determine which document sets (where a set was defined to be an email messages with its attachments) should be produced in response to a production request for which a ‘topic authority’ was available to answer specific questions posed by a participating team.”"
As the article describes, "The study focused on the results from the best 2 of the 11 entering teams, both of which leveraged human input, e.g., relevancy determinations, made on relatively small number of documents, on an iterative basis to hone machine-learning systems which then analyzed the vastly larger sets of remaining documents."
The results of the study were dramatic. A summarized in the study’s conclusion:
“{T]he myth that exhaustive manual review is the most effective – and therefore, the most defensible – approach to document review is strongly refuted. Technology-assisted review can (and does) yield more accurate results than exhaustive manual review, with much lower effort. “
SRM Legal can provide advanced technological solutions that can be used to substitute for more traditional reviews, or to provide an additional element of quality control to test the results of traditional reviews. Interested? Feel free to contact SRM Legal to discuss some of these advanced techniques, and to learn about real life examples where this type of technology has been successfully employed.
No comments:
Post a Comment