令人惊讶的差异:2009年最高法院书面意见中LexisNexis和West标题的实证分析

IF 0.3 4区社会学 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Law Library Journal Pub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI:10.31228/osf.io/26tvu

Peter A. Hook, Kurt R. Mattson

{"title":"令人惊讶的差异:2009年最高法院书面意见中LexisNexis和West标题的实证分析","authors":"Peter A. Hook, Kurt R. Mattson","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/26tvu","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The number of headnotes assigned by LexisNexis and West are empirically examined for opinions of the 2009 Supreme Court Term. Additionally, Citizens United is examined in detail to determine the overlap of headnote-worthy language. Discrepancies in the number of headnotes assigned and disagreement as to headnote-worthy language call into question the rigor with which headnotes are created.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"109 1","pages":"557-629"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surprising Differences: An Empirical Analysis of LexisNexis and West Headnotes in the Written Opinions of the 2009 Supreme Court Term\",\"authors\":\"Peter A. Hook, Kurt R. Mattson\",\"doi\":\"10.31228/osf.io/26tvu\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The number of headnotes assigned by LexisNexis and West are empirically examined for opinions of the 2009 Supreme Court Term. Additionally, Citizens United is examined in detail to determine the overlap of headnote-worthy language. Discrepancies in the number of headnotes assigned and disagreement as to headnote-worthy language call into question the rigor with which headnotes are created.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law Library Journal\",\"volume\":\"109 1\",\"pages\":\"557-629\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law Library Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/26tvu\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Library Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/26tvu","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

LexisNexis和West指定的标题数量对2009年最高法院任期的意见进行了实证检验。此外，还详细审查了《联合公民》，以确定标题中值得注意的语言的重叠部分。分配的标题数量的差异和标题语言的不一致使人们对标题编写的严谨性产生疑问。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Surprising Differences: An Empirical Analysis of LexisNexis and West Headnotes in the Written Opinions of the 2009 Supreme Court Term

The number of headnotes assigned by LexisNexis and West are empirically examined for opinions of the 2009 Supreme Court Term. Additionally, Citizens United is examined in detail to determine the overlap of headnote-worthy language. Discrepancies in the number of headnotes assigned and disagreement as to headnote-worthy language call into question the rigor with which headnotes are created.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Law Library Journal Multiple-

CiteScore

0.30

自引率

50.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Law Library Journal has been the "official" publication of the Association since 1908. It is published quarterly and distributed to members directly.