Mining EU consultations through AI

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Fabiana Di Porto, Paolo Fantozzi, Maurizio Naldi, Nicoletta Rangone
{"title":"Mining EU consultations through AI","authors":"Fabiana Di Porto,&nbsp;Paolo Fantozzi,&nbsp;Maurizio Naldi,&nbsp;Nicoletta Rangone","doi":"10.1007/s10506-024-09426-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Consultations are key to gather evidence that informs rulemaking. When analysing the feedback received, it is essential for the regulator to appropriately cluster stakeholders’ opinions, as misclustering may alter the representativeness of the positions, making some of them appear majoritarian when they might not be. The European Commission (EC)’s approach to clustering opinions in consultations lacks a standardized methodology, leading to reduced procedural transparency, while making use of computational tools only sporadically. This paper explores how natural language processing (NLP) technologies may enhance the way opinion clustering is currently conducted by the EC. We examine 830 responses to three legislative proposals (the Artificial Intelligence Act, the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act) using both a lexical and semantic approach. We find that some groups (like small and medium companies) have low similarity across all datasets and methodologies despite being clustered in one opinion group by the EC. The same happens for citizens and consumer associations for the consultation run over the DSA. These results suggest that computational tools actually help reduce misclustering of stakeholders’ opinions and consequently allow greater representativeness of the different positions expressed in consultations. They further suggest that the EC could identify a convergent methodology for all its consultations, where such tools are employed in a consistent and replicable rather than occasionally. Ideally, it should also explain when one methodology is preferred to another. This effort should find its way into the Better Regulation toolbox (EC 2023). Our analysis also paves the way for further research to reach a transparent and consistent methodology for group clustering.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51336,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Intelligence and Law","volume":"34 1","pages":"267 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10506-024-09426-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Intelligence and Law","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-024-09426-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Consultations are key to gather evidence that informs rulemaking. When analysing the feedback received, it is essential for the regulator to appropriately cluster stakeholders’ opinions, as misclustering may alter the representativeness of the positions, making some of them appear majoritarian when they might not be. The European Commission (EC)’s approach to clustering opinions in consultations lacks a standardized methodology, leading to reduced procedural transparency, while making use of computational tools only sporadically. This paper explores how natural language processing (NLP) technologies may enhance the way opinion clustering is currently conducted by the EC. We examine 830 responses to three legislative proposals (the Artificial Intelligence Act, the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act) using both a lexical and semantic approach. We find that some groups (like small and medium companies) have low similarity across all datasets and methodologies despite being clustered in one opinion group by the EC. The same happens for citizens and consumer associations for the consultation run over the DSA. These results suggest that computational tools actually help reduce misclustering of stakeholders’ opinions and consequently allow greater representativeness of the different positions expressed in consultations. They further suggest that the EC could identify a convergent methodology for all its consultations, where such tools are employed in a consistent and replicable rather than occasionally. Ideally, it should also explain when one methodology is preferred to another. This effort should find its way into the Better Regulation toolbox (EC 2023). Our analysis also paves the way for further research to reach a transparent and consistent methodology for group clustering.

通过人工智能挖掘欧盟磋商
磋商是收集为规则制定提供依据的证据的关键。在分析收到的反馈时,监管机构必须适当地聚类利益相关者的意见,因为错误聚类可能会改变立场的代表性,使其中一些人在可能不是多数的情况下显得多数。欧盟委员会(EC)在协商中聚类意见的方法缺乏标准化的方法,导致程序透明度降低,同时只是偶尔使用计算工具。本文探讨了自然语言处理(NLP)技术如何增强欧共体目前进行意见聚类的方式。我们使用词汇和语义方法研究了对三项立法提案(人工智能法案、数字市场法和数字服务法)的830份回应。我们发现一些团体(如中小型公司)在所有数据集和方法上的相似性很低,尽管被欧盟委员会聚集在一个意见组中。同样的情况也发生在公民和消费者协会的咨询运行在DSA。这些结果表明,计算工具实际上有助于减少利益相关者意见的错误聚类,从而使协商中表达的不同立场具有更大的代表性。他们进一步建议,欧共体可以为其所有磋商确定一种统一的方法,在这种方法中,这些工具是一致和可复制的,而不是偶尔使用。理想情况下,它还应该解释什么时候一种方法优于另一种方法。这一努力应该进入更好的监管工具箱(EC 2023)。我们的分析也为进一步的研究铺平了道路,以达到透明和一致的群体聚类方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
26.80%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Artificial Intelligence and Law is an international forum for the dissemination of original interdisciplinary research in the following areas: Theoretical or empirical studies in artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive psychology, jurisprudence, linguistics, or philosophy which address the development of formal or computational models of legal knowledge, reasoning, and decision making. In-depth studies of innovative artificial intelligence systems that are being used in the legal domain. Studies which address the legal, ethical and social implications of the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: Computational models of legal reasoning and decision making; judgmental reasoning, adversarial reasoning, case-based reasoning, deontic reasoning, and normative reasoning. Formal representation of legal knowledge: deontic notions, normative modalities, rights, factors, values, rules. Jurisprudential theories of legal reasoning. Specialized logics for law. Psychological and linguistic studies concerning legal reasoning. Legal expert systems; statutory systems, legal practice systems, predictive systems, and normative systems. AI and law support for legislative drafting, judicial decision-making, and public administration. Intelligent processing of legal documents; conceptual retrieval of cases and statutes, automatic text understanding, intelligent document assembly systems, hypertext, and semantic markup of legal documents. Intelligent processing of legal information on the World Wide Web, legal ontologies, automated intelligent legal agents, electronic legal institutions, computational models of legal texts. Ramifications for AI and Law in e-Commerce, automatic contracting and negotiation, digital rights management, and automated dispute resolution. Ramifications for AI and Law in e-governance, e-government, e-Democracy, and knowledge-based systems supporting public services, public dialogue and mediation. Intelligent computer-assisted instructional systems in law or ethics. Evaluation and auditing techniques for legal AI systems. Systemic problems in the construction and delivery of legal AI systems. Impact of AI on the law and legal institutions. Ethical issues concerning legal AI systems. In addition to original research contributions, the Journal will include a Book Review section, a series of Technology Reports describing existing and emerging products, applications and technologies, and a Research Notes section of occasional essays posing interesting and timely research challenges for the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Financial support for the Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law is provided by the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书