Days Three and Four of a Predictive Coding Narrative: Where I find that the computer is free to disagree by Ralph Losey.
From the post:
This is the third in a series of detailed descriptions of a legal search project. The project was an academic training exercise for Jackson Lewis e-discovery liaisons conducted in May and June 2012. I searched a set of 699,082 Enron emails and attachments for possible evidence pertaining to involuntary employee terminations. The first day of search is described in Day One of a Predictive Coding Narrative: Searching for Relevance in the Ashes of Enron. The second day is described in Day Two of a Predictive Coding Narrative: More Than A Random Stroll Down Memory Lane.
The description of day-two was short, but it was preceded by a long explanation of my review plan and search philosophy, along with a rant in favor of humanity and against over-dependence on computer intelligence. Here I will just stick to the facts of what I did in days three and four of my search using Kroll Ontrack’s (KO) Inview software.
Interesting description of where Ralph and the computer disagree on relevant/irrelevant judgement on documents.
Unless I just missed it, Ralph is only told be the software what rating a document was given, not why the software arrived at that rating. Yes?
If you knew what terms drove a particular rating, it would be interesting to “comment out” those terms in a document to see the impact on its relevance rating.