Riri24 commited on
Commit
1467407
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): dd31d1b

Update README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +1 -2
README.md CHANGED
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ French (fr) — the working language of the OHADA CCJA.
115
  | `full_text` | string | Complete text of the decision | 100% |
116
  | `source` | string | Provenance: `file1`, `file2`, or `both` | 100% |
117
 
118
- > **Note on field completeness:** This dataset was compiled from two complementary sources with different annotation depths. The `reasoning` field (court's motif) is available for ~1,100 cases from Source 1. The `articles_cited`, `plaintiff`, and `defendant` fields are primarily available from Source 2 (~3,500 cases). The `source` column indicates provenance, allowing researchers to filter for task-specific subsets. See "Source Data" below.
119
 
120
  ### Data Splits
121
 
@@ -153,7 +153,6 @@ The `legal_domain` field covers **16 categories** across the major branches of O
153
  The corpus was compiled from two complementary sources of publicly available CCJA decisions:
154
 
155
  - **Source 1** (1,115 unique cases after deduplication): Decisions with extracted judicial reasoning (`reasoning`/motif), dispute summaries, and rulings. These are typically original court decision texts scraped from OHADA legal databases.
156
-
157
  - **Source 2** (3,642 unique cases after deduplication from 10,410 raw records): Decisions with cited legal articles (`articles_cited`), detailed party names (`plaintiff`/`defendant`), and descriptive case type labels (`case_type`). These include annotated case analyses with structured metadata.
158
 
159
  **548 cases were present in both sources** and were merged to combine the richest available annotations. The final dataset contains 4,059 unique cases.
 
115
  | `full_text` | string | Complete text of the decision | 100% |
116
  | `source` | string | Provenance: `file1`, `file2`, or `both` | 100% |
117
 
118
+ **Note on field completeness:** This dataset was compiled from two complementary sources with different annotation depths. The "reasoning" field (court's motif) is available for approximately 1,100 cases from Source 1. The "articles_cited", "plaintiff", and "defendant" fields are primarily available from Source 2 (approximately 3,500 cases). The "source" column indicates provenance, allowing researchers to filter for task-specific subsets. See "Source Data" below.
119
 
120
  ### Data Splits
121
 
 
153
  The corpus was compiled from two complementary sources of publicly available CCJA decisions:
154
 
155
  - **Source 1** (1,115 unique cases after deduplication): Decisions with extracted judicial reasoning (`reasoning`/motif), dispute summaries, and rulings. These are typically original court decision texts scraped from OHADA legal databases.
 
156
  - **Source 2** (3,642 unique cases after deduplication from 10,410 raw records): Decisions with cited legal articles (`articles_cited`), detailed party names (`plaintiff`/`defendant`), and descriptive case type labels (`case_type`). These include annotated case analyses with structured metadata.
157
 
158
  **548 cases were present in both sources** and were merged to combine the richest available annotations. The final dataset contains 4,059 unique cases.