{"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}
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
