New Developments in Advanced Legal Search: the emergence of the “Multimodal Single-SME” approach

Army of One: Multimodal Single-SME Approach To Machine Learning

What is an Army of One?

What does Multimodal Single-SME mean?

What is an “approach” to Machine Learning?

What other approaches are there?

What is Machine Learning anyway? 

The answers to these and many other related questions are coming soon to the e-Discovery Team blog. The issue in Legal Search today is no longer whether you should use “predictive coding,” the issue is how. There is far more to this question than the “disclosure issues” we have been talking about at LegalTech, Georgetown and elsewhere. The I’ll show you mine, but you’ve got to show me yours nonsense. That is just window dressing. The real issues are deeper than that and have not been debated yet. Stay tuned….

This entry was posted on Friday, March 1st, 2013 at 8:01 am and is filed under Evidence, Forensic Exam, Lawyers Duties, Metadata, New Rules, Related Legal Webs, Review, Search, Spoliation/Sanctions, Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Responses to New Developments in Advanced Legal Search: the emergence of the “Multimodal Single-SME” approach

  1. The Many Types of Legal Search Software in the CAR Market Today | e-Discovery Team ® says:
    March 3, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    […] as a predicate for a discussion of the next stage of the predictive coding debate. As I said in New Developments in Advanced Legal Search: the emergence of the “Multimodal Single-SME” approach, the next stage of the debate is not whether to use a CAR, or how much disclosure you should make, […]

  2. Notable Articles in E-Discovery 3/6/13 | Streamline Imaging says:
    March 6, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    […] as a predicate for a discussion of the next stage of the predictive coding debate. As I said in New Developments in Advanced Legal Search: the emergence of the “Multimodal Single-SME” approach, the next stage of the debate is not whether to use a CAR, or how much disclosure you should make, […]

  3. Less Is More: When it comes to predictive coding training, the “fewer reviewers the better” – Part Two | e-Discovery Team ® says:
    December 2, 2013 at 10:25 am

    […] None of the studies to date on relevance coding inconsistencies were made to evaluate the impact of such inconsistencies on active machine learning. Recent data obtained by the Electronic Discovery Institute in their Oracle project, may, however, make it possible for scientists to make such evaluations in the future. Bay, M., EDI-Oracle Study: Humans Are Still Essential in E-Discovery (LTN Nov., 2013). As reported in the Monica Bay article the data on inconsistencies and number of reviewers used by each participating team may make it possible for scientists to now prove, or disprove, my theory that less is more, that consistent input by bona fide experts, SMEs, is critical to attaining comparatively high performance in real-world legal search projects. That is what I have been referring to for some time as the Army of One approach. See eg. LegalSearchScience.com; The Solution to Empty-Suits in the Board Room: The “Hacker Way” of Management – Part Two; New Developments in Advanced Legal Search: the emergence of the “Multimodal Single-SME” approach. […]

  • Hello dear human reader, I am a GPT powered AI chat bot. Ask me anything!

AI thinking ...
ChatGPT
%d bloggers like this: