Datasets:
uid stringclasses 10
values | dataset_id stringclasses 1
value | jurisdiction stringclasses 3
values | court_level stringclasses 5
values | year int64 2.02k 2.02k | area_of_law stringclasses 7
values | pillar stringclasses 1
value | series stringclasses 1
value | input_case_causal_theory stringclasses 10
values | input_expert_method stringclasses 10
values | input_data_support stringclasses 10
values | input_alternative_causes_handling stringclasses 10
values | input_certainty_language stringclasses 8
values | input_gatekeeping_signals stringclasses 6
values | question stringclasses 1
value | ground_truth_label stringclasses 2
values | ground_truth_rationale stringclasses 10
values | outcome_signal stringclasses 4
values | early_window_months int64 0 6 | source_citation stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CE-TR-001 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,021 | Tort | adjudicative_process | 2A | Chemical exposure causes illness | Epidemiology plus differential etiology | Consistent exposure timeline | Alternatives evaluated and ruled out | Bounded probability language | Admitted | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Method and data support opinion with alternatives addressed. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-002 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,020 | Tort | adjudicative_process | 2A | Product defect caused fire | Visual inspection only | No testing or replication | Alternatives ignored | Near certain language | Daubert exclusion | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Opinion leap with no validated method or alternative cause analysis. | exclusion_risk | 2 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-003 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,022 | Medical Negligence | adjudicative_process | 2A | Delay in treatment caused harm | Counterfactual timeline analysis | Records and timing support | Confounders discussed | Qualified language | Accepted | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Counterfactual method fits facts and limits acknowledged. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-004 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,021 | Medical Negligence | adjudicative_process | 2A | Surgery caused long term pain | No baseline assessment | Sparse records | Alternatives not considered | Absolute language | Weight reduced | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Sparse data and no alternative cause handling. | appeal_risk | 5 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-005 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | EU | Trial | 2,021 | Competition | adjudicative_process | 2A | Cartel caused price overcharge | Econometric overcharge model | Market data supports | Alternative market shocks modelled | Confidence bounds stated | Admitted | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Model and data support causal claim with bounds. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-006 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | US | State | 2,019 | Criminal | adjudicative_process | 2A | Injury mechanism matches assault | Biomechanical analysis with imaging | Data supports mechanism | Alternative explanations evaluated | Qualified language | Admitted | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Mechanism opinion grounded in data and alternatives. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-007 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | US | State | 2,018 | Tort | adjudicative_process | 2A | Slip caused spinal injury | Temporal proximity only | No imaging baseline | Degenerative causes ignored | Certain language | Excluded | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Temporal proximity substituted for causal analysis. | exclusion_risk | 3 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-008 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | EU | Appellate | 2,020 | Consumer | adjudicative_process | 2A | Ad campaign caused consumer harm | Survey plus behavioural inference | Limited dataset | Alternative drivers not tested | Overconfident language | Court criticises | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Inference exceeds data and ignores alternatives. | weight_reduction_risk | 6 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-009 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,019 | Industrial Disease | adjudicative_process | 2A | Exposure caused lung disease | Epidemiology plus dose history | Exposure records consistent | Smoking handled as competing cause | Bounded language | Accepted | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Dose history and competing causes addressed. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
CE-TR-010 | legal-causation-expert-opinion-coherence-drift-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,023 | Products Liability | adjudicative_process | 2A | Design defect caused injury | Testing and engineering analysis | Replication supports | Alternative designs compared | Qualified language | Admitted | Is expert causation coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Testing supports causal mechanism and alternatives considered. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
What this dataset is You receive case causal theory expert method data support alternative causes handling certainty language gatekeeping signals You decide Does the causation opinion cohere with method and facts Answer coherent or incoherent Why this matters Causation opinion drift predicts Daubert exclusion loss of summary judgment appeal and reversal risk
- Downloads last month
- 25