合同的可读性:大数据分析

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2024-11-17 DOI:10.1111/jels.12400
Yonathan A. Arbel
{"title":"合同的可读性:大数据分析","authors":"Yonathan A. Arbel","doi":"10.1111/jels.12400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The plain language movement waged a silent revolution in the last generation, passing nearly 800 laws nationwide with little public debate. The movement asserted that it could scientifically show that there is a widespread readability crisis in legal documents, particularly contracts, that are unreadable to most adults. This article presents the largest empirical analysis of these claims to date, utilizing a dataset of 2 million contracts spanning multiple decades and industries and applying machine learning techniques. The study challenges fundamental tenets of the plain language movement. Contrary to prevailing beliefs, consumer agreements have median reading scores almost indistinguishable from those of daily news articles. A critical evaluation further exposes that readability tools endorsed by the movement are shoddy and manipulable and can produce grade-level differences of up to 4.6 years for identical texts. Moreover, the movement's core belief that Americans cannot read past the level of an eighth grader is exposed as an unsubstantiated myth. These findings fundamentally challenge the premises and effectiveness of one of the central consumer protection policies. These results call for a radical rethinking of legal access strategies, suggesting a shift from superficial readability metrics to addressing substantive issues in market dynamics and focusing on truly vulnerable populations. More broadly, this case study serves as a cautionary tale about the propagation of myths in legal scholarship and the potential for well-intentioned reform movements to divert attention and resources from more effective interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"21 4","pages":"927-978"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The readability of contracts: Big data analysis\",\"authors\":\"Yonathan A. Arbel\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jels.12400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The plain language movement waged a silent revolution in the last generation, passing nearly 800 laws nationwide with little public debate. The movement asserted that it could scientifically show that there is a widespread readability crisis in legal documents, particularly contracts, that are unreadable to most adults. This article presents the largest empirical analysis of these claims to date, utilizing a dataset of 2 million contracts spanning multiple decades and industries and applying machine learning techniques. The study challenges fundamental tenets of the plain language movement. Contrary to prevailing beliefs, consumer agreements have median reading scores almost indistinguishable from those of daily news articles. A critical evaluation further exposes that readability tools endorsed by the movement are shoddy and manipulable and can produce grade-level differences of up to 4.6 years for identical texts. Moreover, the movement's core belief that Americans cannot read past the level of an eighth grader is exposed as an unsubstantiated myth. These findings fundamentally challenge the premises and effectiveness of one of the central consumer protection policies. These results call for a radical rethinking of legal access strategies, suggesting a shift from superficial readability metrics to addressing substantive issues in market dynamics and focusing on truly vulnerable populations. More broadly, this case study serves as a cautionary tale about the propagation of myths in legal scholarship and the potential for well-intentioned reform movements to divert attention and resources from more effective interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"21 4\",\"pages\":\"927-978\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12400\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12400","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

上一代人中,"通俗语言运动 "发起了一场无声的革命,在全国范围内通过了近 800 项法律,几乎没有引起公众的讨论。这场运动声称,它可以用科学的方法证明,法律文件(尤其是合同)普遍存在可读性危机,大多数成年人都无法阅读。本文对这些说法进行了迄今为止最大规模的实证分析,利用了一个包含 200 万份合同的数据集,这些合同跨越了多个年代和行业,并应用了机器学习技术。这项研究对 "浅显语言运动 "的基本原则提出了挑战。与普遍的观点相反,消费者协议的中位阅读分数与日常新闻文章几乎没有区别。批判性评估进一步揭露了该运动所认可的可读性工具是伪劣的、可操控的,对于相同的文本,可产生长达 4.6 年的年级差异。此外,该运动的核心理念,即美国人的阅读能力无法超过八年级学生的水平,也被揭露为一个未经证实的神话。这些发现从根本上挑战了消费者保护政策的前提和有效性。这些结果要求对法律普及战略进行彻底的反思,建议从表面的可读性指标转向解决市场动态中的实质性问题,并关注真正的弱势群体。从更广泛的意义上讲,本案例研究可作为一个警示故事,提醒人们注意法律学术中神话的传播,以及用心良苦的改革运动有可能将注意力和资源从更有效的干预措施上转移开。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The readability of contracts: Big data analysis

The plain language movement waged a silent revolution in the last generation, passing nearly 800 laws nationwide with little public debate. The movement asserted that it could scientifically show that there is a widespread readability crisis in legal documents, particularly contracts, that are unreadable to most adults. This article presents the largest empirical analysis of these claims to date, utilizing a dataset of 2 million contracts spanning multiple decades and industries and applying machine learning techniques. The study challenges fundamental tenets of the plain language movement. Contrary to prevailing beliefs, consumer agreements have median reading scores almost indistinguishable from those of daily news articles. A critical evaluation further exposes that readability tools endorsed by the movement are shoddy and manipulable and can produce grade-level differences of up to 4.6 years for identical texts. Moreover, the movement's core belief that Americans cannot read past the level of an eighth grader is exposed as an unsubstantiated myth. These findings fundamentally challenge the premises and effectiveness of one of the central consumer protection policies. These results call for a radical rethinking of legal access strategies, suggesting a shift from superficial readability metrics to addressing substantive issues in market dynamics and focusing on truly vulnerable populations. More broadly, this case study serves as a cautionary tale about the propagation of myths in legal scholarship and the potential for well-intentioned reform movements to divert attention and resources from more effective interventions.

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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Market versus policy responses to novel occupational risks Network analysis of lawyer referral markets: Evidence from Indiana Emotional bargaining after litigation: An experimental study of the Coase theorem Automating Abercrombie: Machine-learning trademark distinctiveness
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1