Cited by 117Artificial Intelligence in LawLegal Language and InterpretationLegal and Constitutional Studies

Measuring the complexity of the law: the United States Code

Open access
Katz, Daniel Martin, Bommarito, M. J.·2014·Artificial Intelligence and Law

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10506-014-9160-8

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Legal language is notoriously complex.

    “Legal language is notoriously complex [3–5]”

    From GPT-4 passes the bar exam (2024) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katz, D. M., & Bommarito, M. J.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Katz, Daniel Martin
Venue
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Published
2014-09-16
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
337-374
ISSN
  • 0924-8463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8382
OpenAlex
W3124687544
Cited by
117
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
32.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Artificial Intelligence and Law (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Language and Interpretation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Legal and Constitutional Studies
Keywords
legal complexity, United States Code, citation networks, linguistic entropy, knowledge acquisition, legal language, legal system design, complexity measurement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review