-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 153
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update Citation Model to include page_end field for each opinion #4843
Comments
Seems fine to me, but let's prioritize carefully. When we do this, we should look for other issues with the I don't know what you mean by "Table citations" though? Example? |
Got it, thanks for the photo! So you said that an advantage of having the page length of each opinion is that we'd be able to identify table citations. I think adding the word count would accomplish this as well (see #4844). Similar idea. Worth doing both. |
could even add a is_valid flag - because we now see revoked citations - or removed citations. |
What do you mean? |
I came across a revoked citation. |
What does that mean? |
I assume advanced sheets contain the most, and subsequent volumes might remove things here and there. In any case, we can add this to our citator instead of the citation model. |
@mlissner
I propose we update the citation model to include an optional
page_end
field. This change would provide several benefits:1. Filtering by Substantive Opinions: Users could filter out table citations or focus on opinions based on their length, enhancing usability.
2. Data Analysis: It could help identify gaps in the data. While this wouldn’t work in all cases, it could highlight discrepancies in certain situations.
Additionally, I believe we already have much of this data in the Harvard JSON, which we chose not to capture initially because the data was embedded in the page numbers. In hindsight, that decision seems like a missed opportunity.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: