Similar Cases

Multi-factor similarity search using provision overlap, semantic similarity, and outcome alignment.

Select Source Case
Source Case: Expert Witness—Discovery of New Data Following Submission of Report

Case Number: 16-7

Year: 2016

Found 10 Similar Cases

Ranked by weighted similarity score
Matching Methods:
Cosine Semantic embedding similarity Jaccard Set intersection / union Categorical Exact match scoring
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
49%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
73%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
50%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
57%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1.a III.1.a +1

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Advertising Self-Promotion +1

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
60%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
71%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
38%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
62%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.3.a III.1.a III.3.a

Topics: Errors Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Opinions +4

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
56%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
63%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
40%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
57%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4 I.5 III.1.a +1

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Advertising Self-Promotion +1

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
35%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
50%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
70%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.3 I.5 +4

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Self-Promotion Advertising +2

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Oscillation

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
66%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
74%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
18%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1.a

Topics: Duty to Disclose

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
46%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
66%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
36%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 III.1.a +1

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Advertising Self-Promotion +1

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
44%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
68%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
33%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.3.a III.1.a III.3.a

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Professional Reports, Statements, Testimony

Citations: 95-5

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
64%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
62%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
29%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
36%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.5 II.1.a +1

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Professional Reports, Statements, Testimony

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
49%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
66%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
31%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
27%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.5 III.1.a +1

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Advertising Duty to Disclose +1

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
45%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
66%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
29%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
33%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.4 I.5 +1

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer