uid stringclasses 10 values | dataset_id stringclasses 1 value | jurisdiction stringclasses 3 values | court_level stringclasses 6 values | year int64 2.02k 2.02k | area_of_law stringclasses 6 values | pillar stringclasses 1 value | series stringclasses 1 value | input_expert_credentials stringclasses 9 values | input_opinion_scope stringclasses 10 values | input_method_basis stringclasses 10 values | input_validation_status stringclasses 5 values | input_overreach_signals stringclasses 6 values | input_daubert_or_equivalent_signals stringclasses 5 values | question stringclasses 2 values | ground_truth_label stringclasses 3 values | ground_truth_rationale stringclasses 10 values | outcome_signal stringclasses 4 values | early_window_months stringclasses 5 values | source_citation stringclasses 1 value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EX-TR-001 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,021 | Tort | legal_actors | 3C | Board-certified orthopaedic surgeon | Opines on fracture mechanism | Relies on imaging and clinical exam | Validated method | No overreach | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Credentials and method align with opinion scope. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-002 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,020 | Tort | legal_actors | 3C | General practitioner | Opines on complex biomechanical failure | Speculative reconstruction | Weak validation | Scope exceeds training | Daubert challenge sustained | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Opinion exceeds expertise and lacks validated method. | exclusion_risk | 2 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-003 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,022 | Commercial | legal_actors | 3C | Chartered accountant | Opines on financial loss model | Uses accepted accounting methods | Validated | Within scope | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Opinion matches credentials and method. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-004 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,021 | Commercial | legal_actors | 3C | Accountant | Opines on engineering defect | No engineering method | Invalid scope | Clear overreach | Excluded | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Expert opines outside field with no method support. | exclusion_risk | 1 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-005 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | EU | Trial | 2,022 | Competition | legal_actors | 3C | Economist | Opines on market impact | Uses accepted econometric model | Validated | Within scope | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Econometric analysis fits expertise and question. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-006 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | State | 2,019 | Criminal | legal_actors | 3C | Forensic analyst | Opines on DNA match probability | Uses validated lab protocol | Validated | No overreach | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Method and credentials align. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-007 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | State | 2,018 | Criminal | legal_actors | 3C | Forensic analyst | States absolute match certainty | Lab method has known error rate | Overstates certainty | Daubert motion | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Opinion certainty exceeds validated error margins. | appeal_risk | 3 | Synthetic | null |
EX-TR-008 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | UK | Crown Court | 2,020 | Criminal | legal_actors | 3C | Psychologist | Opines on defendant mental state | Uses standard assessment tools | Validated | Within scope | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Opinion within training and method limits. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-009 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | EU | Appellate | 2,021 | Consumer | legal_actors | 3C | Marketing consultant | Opines on consumer psychology causation | No scientific testing | Weak validation | Scope creep | Weight reduced | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Method and credentials insufficient for causal claim. | weight_reduction_risk | 4 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-010 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,023 | Securities | legal_actors | 3C | Financial economist | Opines on price impact | Uses accepted event study | Validated | Within scope | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Event study aligns with credentials and opinion. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.