@conference {15856,
	title = {Replication and automation of expert judgments: Information engineering in legal e-discovery},
	booktitle = {IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2009. SMC 2009},
	year = {2009},
	month = {2009/10/11/14},
	pages = {102 - 107},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	organization = {IEEE},
	abstract = {The retrieval of digital evidence responsive to discovery requests in civil litigation, known in the United States as {\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown}e-discovery,{\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown} presents several important and understudied conditions and challenges. Among the most important of these are (i) that the definition of responsiveness that governs the search effort can be learned and made explicit through effective interaction with the responding party, (ii) that the governing definition of responsiveness is generally complex, deriving both from considerations of subject-matter relevance and from considerations of litigation strategy, and (iii) that the result of the search effort is a set (rather than a ranked list) of documents, and sometimes a quite large set, that is turned over to the requesting party and that the responding party certifies to be an accurate and complete response to the request. This paper describes the design of an {\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown}interactive task{\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown} for the text retrieval conference{\textquoteright}s legal track that had the evaluation of the effectiveness of e-discovery applications at the {\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown}responsive review{\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown} task as its goal. Notable features of the 2008 interactive task were high-fidelity human-system task modeling, authority control for the definition of {\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown}responsiveness,{\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown} and relatively deep sampling for estimation of type 1 and type 2 errors (expressed as {\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown}precision{\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown} and {\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown}recall{\~A}{\^A}{\textquestiondown}). The paper presents a critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation design from the perspectives of reliability, reusability, and cost-benefit tradeoffs.},
	keywords = {authorisation, authority control, Automation, civil litigation, CYBERNETICS, Delay, digital evidence retrieval, discovery request, Educational institutions, expert judgment automation, Human computer interaction, Human-machine cooperation and systems, human-system task modeling, information engineering, Information retrieval, interactive task, Law, law administration, legal e-discovery, Legal factors, PROBES, Production, Protocols, search effort, Search methods, text analysis, text retrieval conference legal track, United States, USA Councils, User modeling},
	isbn = {978-1-4244-2793-2},
	doi = {10.1109/ICSMC.2009.5346118},
	author = {Hedin,B. and Oard, Douglas}
}
@article {17307,
	title = {Network Visualization by Semantic Substrates},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2006},
	month = {2006/10//Sept},
	pages = {733 - 740},
	abstract = {Networks have remained a challenge for information visualization designers because of the complex issues of node and link layout coupled with the rich set of tasks that users present. This paper offers a strategy based on two principles: (1) layouts are based on user-defined semantic substrates, which are non-overlapping regions in which node placement is based on node attributes, (2) users interactively adjust sliders to control link visibility to limit clutter and thus ensure comprehensibility of source and destination. Scalability is further facilitated by user control of which nodes are visible. We illustrate our semantic substrates approach as implemented in NVSS 1.0 with legal precedent data for up to 1122 court cases in three regions with 7645 legal citations},
	keywords = {Automatic control, data visualisation, Data visualization, Displays, Filters, Graphical user interfaces, Information Visualization, information visualization designers, Law, legal citations, Legal factors, legal precedent data, network visualization, NVSS 1.0, scalability, semantic substrate, Terminology, Tunneling, user-defined semantic substrates},
	isbn = {1077-2626},
	doi = {10.1109/TVCG.2006.166},
	author = {Shneiderman, Ben and Aris,A.}
}
@conference {16363,
	title = {Code generation for multiple mappings},
	booktitle = {Frontiers of Massively Parallel Computation, 1995. Proceedings. Frontiers {\textquoteright}95., Fifth Symposium on the},
	year = {1995},
	month = {1995/02/06/9},
	pages = {332 - 341},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	organization = {IEEE},
	abstract = {There has been a great amount of recent work toward unifying iteration reordering transformations. Many of these approaches represent transformations as affine mappings from the original iteration space to a new iteration space. These approaches show a great deal of promise, but they all rely on the ability to generate code that iterates over the points in these new iteration spaces in the appropriate order. This problem has been fairly well-studied in the case where all statements use the same mapping. We have developed an algorithm for the less well-studied case where each statement uses a potentially different mapping. Unlike many other approaches, our algorithm can also generate code from mappings corresponding to loop blocking. We address the important trade-off between reducing control overhead and duplicating code},
	keywords = {code generation, Computer science, Concurrent computing, control overhead, Educational institutions, iteration reordering transformations, Law, Legal factors, loop blocking, multiple mappings, optimisation, optimising compilers, Optimizing compilers, PARALLEL PROCESSING, Performance analysis, program compilers},
	isbn = {0-8186-6965-9},
	doi = {10.1109/FMPC.1995.380437},
	author = {Kelly,W. and Pugh, William and Rosser,E.}
}
