The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Judge v Robot? Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-Making
Abstract
As technology continues to change the way in which we work and function, there are predictions that many aspects of human activity will be replaced or supported by newer technologies. Whilst many human activities have changed over time as a result of human advances, more recent shifts in the context of technological change are likely to have a broader impact on some human functions that have previously been largely undisturbed. In this regard, technology is already changing the practice of law and may for example, reshape the process of judging by either replacing, supporting or supplementing the judicial role. Such changes may limit the extent to which humans are engaged in judging with an increasing emphasis on artificial intelligence to deal with smaller civil disputes and the more routine use of related technologies in more complex disputes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The cases allowed experts to examine granular concerns around singular situations as well as overarching technical and legal constraints, producing a more concrete set of contextual factors for AI developers, beyond theoretical and high-level principles in prior research [7, 25, 77].”
From (A)I Am Not a Lawyer, But...: Engaging Legal Experts towards Responsible LLM Policies for Legal Advice (2024) · cites this paper as [77]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Towards Human-Centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations
Rong, Y., Leemann, T., Nguyen, T.-T., Fiedler, L., Qian, P., Unhelkar, V., Seidel, T., Kasneci, G., & Kasneci, E. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3331846 · Cited by 278
Palomares, I., Martínez-Cámara, E., Montes, R., García-Moral, P., Chiachio, M., Chiachio, J., Alonso, S., Melero, F. J., Molina, D., Fernández, B., et al. (2021) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-021-02264-y · Cited by 276
Large language models in law: A survey
Lai, J., Gan, W., Wu, J., Qi, Z., & Yu, P. S. (2024) · AI Open · doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2024.09.002 · Cited by 263
Predicting risk in criminal procedure: Actuarial tools, algorithms, AI and judicial decision-making
McKay, C. (2020) · Current Issues in Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/10345329.2019.1658694 · Cited by 85
Cheong, I., Xia, K., Feng, K. J. K., Chen, Q. Z., & Zhang, A. X. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659048 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Sourdin, T.
- Corresponding author
- Sourdin, Tania
- ORCID
- Sourdin, Tania
- Venue
- University of New South Wales Law Journal
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0313-0096 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3027225699
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 42.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of New South Wales law journal (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, judicial decision-making, judicial role, legal practice, civil disputes, automated adjudication
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
