kaal:claim:5541658-029

The literature offers high short term accuracy figures for judicial AI but almost no evidence on how these tools affect decision quality, case backlogs, or public trust over extended periods, which is a fundamental research gap.

while AI tools have demonstrated high accuracy in predicting case outcomes (e.g., 96.9% in the CAIL dataset), there is little evidence on how these tools affect judicial decision-making quality, case backlogs, or public trust over extended periods.

Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025), Lack of Longitudinal Studies on AI’s Judicial Impact, p. 31
https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658

• the existing empirical literature on AI in judicial systems

failuresupport: arguedfailure: missing longitudinal evidencefamily: research-design-limitationreputationeconomics

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is e543a2d698fcd522d4d02e034cc9ee1344d0015d2c824b40b9e05ab7c0728c60. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/5b5156199b13fd0c...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5541658-029.md | sha256sum