臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：AI機器人律師之擴展技術接受模型
作者：胥霓
作者(外文)：Ni Xu
校院名稱：國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱：管理研究所
指導教授：王孔政
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2022
主題關鍵詞：AI機器人律師；技術接受模型；人工智慧；質化研究；量化研究；AI robot lawyer；technology acceptance model；artificial intelligence；qualitative research；quantitative survey
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
人工智慧(AI)的發展為各行業帶來了新的機遇和挑戰。機器人和人類之間的競爭博弈已經引起了法律研究者的廣泛關注。本研究採用複合式研究法，首先，在探索性研究中，通過對律師、法官、人工智慧專家和潛在客戶的半結構化訪談，探討機器人引入法律服務實踐的問題，通過質化研究提出了一個擴展的AI機器人律師技術接受模型(簡稱RLTAM: Robot Lawyer Technology Acceptance Model)，包括五個構面和十一個要素。該模型突出了兩個維度：「法律使用」和「信任感」。總結出在人工智慧的法律服務中表現出三個特點，即衍生性、宏觀性和指導性。其次，以質化研究的RLTAM為基礎，進行量化驗證性研究，以中國大陸律師服務業為研究對象，收集了385份有效問卷，對該模型中的五個構面進行相互關係的再分析，通過定量研究方法進行RLTAM之再驗證。
本研究結果發現，原RLTAM中的「合法使用性」構面不是消費者接受AI機器人律師的直接關鍵構面，但是對「感知易用性」和「感知有用性」構面會產生直接作用，AI機器人仍然需要對合法性做出積極的回應。具有國家法律許可認證、良好使用者介面設計的AI機器人律師會使人類對其產生信任感。基於延展智慧理論發展的AI機器人律師更能夠和人類形成緊密協同的工作模式，加上適宜的企業管理制度，可以大幅提高律師的整體服務價值，以及消費者對AI機器人律師的接受度。此外，消費者皆表明常態化使用AI機器人是未來法律行業的趨勢，機器人替代的法學職業類型不會受到性別差異化的影響；使用AI機器人律師的從業者需要建立完善的責任風險控制體系。本研究進一步優化了RLTAM模型的完整度，並提供開發人員未來設計AI機器人參考用的依據。此外，AI機器人律師正在開發中，具有替代人類的一些必要能力。儘管如此，與人類律師合作是必須的，以從這種類型的互惠中產生效益。
The development of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought new opportunities and challenges to various industries. The competitive game between robots and humans has attracted extensive attention from legal researchers. This study adopts a complex research approach. First, in an exploratory study, we explore the introduction of robots into legal service practice through semi-structured interviews with lawyers, judges, AI experts, and potential clients, and propose an extended AI Robot Lawyer Technology Acceptance Model (RLTAM) through qualitative research. The model consists of five components and eleven elements. The model highlights two dimensions: "legal use" and "trust". In summary, three characteristics are demonstrated in the legal services of artificial intelligence, namely, derivative, macroscopic, and instructive. Second, a quantitative validation study was conducted based on the qualitative research RLTAM. 385 valid questionnaires were collected from the lawyer service industry in mainland China, and the five components of the model were reanalyzed in terms of their interrelationship, and the RLTAM was revalidated through quantitative research methods.
The results of this study revealed that the "legal use" component of the original RLTAM is not a direct key component of consumer acceptance of AI robot lawyers, but it has a direct effect on the "perceived ease of use" and "perceived usefulness" components, and AI robots still need to respond positively to legality. AI robotic lawyers with national legal licenses and well-designed user interfaces will engender trust in humans. The development of AI robotic lawyers based on the theory of extended intelligence will enable them to work closely with humans and, together with a suitable corporate management system, will significantly increase the overall value of the lawyers’ services and consumer acceptance of the AI robotic lawyers. In addition, consumers have indicated that the use of AI robots is the future trend of the legal industry, and that the type of legal careers replaced by robots will not be affected by gender differentiation; practitioners using AI robotic lawyers need to establish a comprehensive liability and risk control system. This study further optimizes the completeness of the RLTAM model and provides a basis for developers to design AI robots for future reference. In addition, AI robotic lawyers are being developed with some of the necessary capabilities to replace humans. Nevertheless, collaboration with human lawyers is necessary to generate benefits from this type of reciprocity.
1. Adamski, D. (2018). LOST ON THE DIGITAL PLATFORM: EUROPE'S LEGAL TRAVAILS WITH THE DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET [Article]. Common Market Law Review, 55(3), 719-751. ://WOS:000435082700002
2. Aguiló-Regla, J. (2005). Introduction: Legal informatics and the conceptions of the law. In V. R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, & A. Gangemi (Eds.), Law and the Semantic Web: Legal Ontologies, Methodologies, Legal Information Retrieval, and Applications (Vol. 3369, pp. 18-24). Springer-Verlag Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_2
3. Alam, F., Danieli, M., & Riccardi, G. (2017). Annotating and modeling empathy in spoken conversations. Computer Speech & Language, 50, 40-61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2017.12.003
4. Alarie, B., Niblett, A., & Yoon, A. H. (2018). HOW ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WILL AFFECT THE PRACTICE OF LAW [Article]. University of Toronto Law Journal, 68, 106-124. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0052
5. Alschner, W., & Skougarevskiy, D. (2016). Can Robots Write Treaties? Using Recurrent Neural Networks to Draft International Investment Agreements. In F. Bex & S. Villata (Eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Vol. 294, pp. 119-124). Ios Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-726-9-119
6. Arbib, M. A., & Fellous, J. M. (2004). Emotions: from brain to robot. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 554-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.004
7. Armour, J., & Sako, M. (2020). AI-enabled business models in legal services: from traditional law firms to next-generation law companies? Journal of Professions and Organization, 7(1), 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa001
8. Aryabarzan, N., Minaei-Bidgoli, B., & Teshnehlab, M. (2018). negFIN: An efficient algorithm for fast mining frequent itemsets [Article]. Expert Systems with Applications, 105, 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.041
9. Ashley, K. D. (2012). Teaching Law and Digital Age Legal Practice with an AI and Law Seminar. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 88, 783.
10. Augello, A., Infantino, I., Manfre, A., Pilato, G., & Vella, F. (2016). Analyzing and discussing primary creative traits of a robotic artist [Article]. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 17, 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2016.07.006
11. Azzutti, A. (2022). AI-driven Market Manipulation and Limits of the EU law enforcement regime to credible deterrence. 32. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026468
12. Bench-Capon, T., Araszkiewicz, M., Ashley, K., Atkinson, K., Bex, F., Borges, F., Bourcier, D., Bourgine, P., Conrad, J. G., Francesconi, E., Gordon, T. F., Governatori, G., Leidner, J. L., Lewis, D. D., Loui, R. P., McCarty, L. T., Prakken, H., Schilder, F., Schweighofer, E., . . . Wyner, A. Z. (2012). A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(3), 215-319.
13. Bertolini, A., & Aiello, G. (2018). Robot companions: A legal and ethical analysis [Article]. Information Society, 34(3), 130-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2018.1444249
14. Bertolini, A., Salvini, P., Pagliai, T., Morachioli, A., Acerbi, G., Trieste, L., Cavallo, F., Turchetti, G., & Dario, P. (2016). On Robots and Insurance. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(3), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0345-z
15. Botha, A. P. (2019). A mind model for intelligent machine innovation using future thinking principles [Article]. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(8), 1250-1264. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-01-2018-0021
16. Breazeal, C. (2003). Emotion and sociable humanoid robots [Article]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(1-2), 119-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00018-1
17. Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018). Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA): Employees' perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.55
18. Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018). Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.55
19. Brown, L. G. (1989). The strategic and tactical implications of convenience in consumer product marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(3), 13-19.
20. Bryson, J., & Winfield, A. (2017). Standardizing Ethical Design for Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems [Editorial Material]. Computer, 50(5), 116-119. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2017.154
21. Canamero, L. (2005). Emotion understanding from the perspective of autonomous robots research [Article]. Neural Networks, 18(4), 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2005.03.003
22. Casazza, M., & Gioppo, L. (2020). A playwriting technique to engage on a shared reflective enquiry about the social sustainability of robotization and artificial intelligence [Article]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 10, Article 119201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119201
23. Cavallo, F., Semeraro, F., Fiorini, L., Magyar, G., Sincak, P., & Dario, P. (2018). Emotion Modelling for Social Robotics Applications: A Review [Review]. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 15(2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-018-0015-y
24. Chandrinos, S. K., Sakkas, G., & Lagaros, N. D. (2018). AIRMS: A risk management tool using machine learning [Article]. Expert Systems with Applications, 105, 34-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.044
25. Cheng, X., Lin, X., Shen, X.-L., Zarifis, A., & Mou, J. (2022). The dark sides of AI. Electronic Markets, 32(1), 11-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00531-5
26. Cheung, G. W., & Wang, C. (2017). Current approaches for assessing convergent and discriminant validity with SEM: Issues and solutions. Academy of management proceedings,
27. Chibisa, A., & Mutambara, D. (2022). Determinants of High School Learners' Continuous Use of Mobile Learning during the Covid-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(3).
28. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
29. Deedman, C., & Smith, J. (1991). The nervous shock advisor: A legal expert system in case-based law. Pergamon Press.
30. Dekker, F., Salomons, A., & van der Waal, J. (2017). Fear of robots at work: the role of economic self-interest [Article]. Socio-Economic Review, 15(3), 539-562. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwx005
31. Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance [Article; Proceedings Paper]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00038-7
32. Edwina L. Rissland, K. D. A., R. P. Loui. (2003). AI and Law: A fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 1-15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00122-X
33. Eliot, D., & Lance, B. (2022a). Modeling The Design Of AI As Based On The Schema Of The Law. 5. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3998247
34. Eliot, D., & Lance, B. (2022b). Overturned Legal Rulings Are Pivotal In Using Machine Learning And The Law. 5. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3998249
35. Eliot, D., & Lance, B. (2022c). Return Of The Jedi As Good Old Fashioned AI Comes Back Into The Law. 5. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3998240
36. Eliot, D., & Lance, B. (2022d). Significance Of Dissenting Court Opinions For AI Machine Learning In The Law. 5. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3998250
37. Evans, N., & Price, J. (2017). Managing information in law firms: changes and challenges [Article]. Information Research-an International Electronic Journal, 22(1), 21. ://WOS:000404551500065
38. Fells, R., Caspersz, D., & Leighton, C. (2018). The encouragement of bargaining in good faith - A behavioural approach [Article]. Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(2), 266-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185617741925
39. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
40. Fuller, M. A., Serva, M. A., & Baroudi, J. (2010). Clarifying the integration of trust and TAM in e-commerce environments: implications for systems design and management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(3), 380-393. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2009.2023111
41. Gadanho, S. C., & Hallam, J. (2001). Robot learning driven by emotions [Article]. Adaptive Behavior, 9(1), 42-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/105971230200900102
42. Gatteschi, V., Lamberti, F., Montuschi, P., & Sanna, A. (2016). Semantics-Based Intelligent Human-Computer Interaction [Article]. Ieee Intelligent Systems, 31(4), 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1109/mis.2015.97
43. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model [Review]. Mis Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90. ://WOS:000181423100004
44. Girish, V. G., Kim, M.-Y., Sharma, I., & Lee, C.-K. (2022). Examining the structural relationships among e-learning interactivity, uncertainty avoidance, and perceived risks of COVID-19: Applying extended technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(8), 742-752. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1970430
45. Goodman-Delahunty, J., Granhag, P. A., Hartwig, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2010). INSIGHTFUL OR WISHFUL: Lawyers' Ability to Predict Case Outcomes [Article]. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 16(2), 133-157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019060
46. Goodman, J. (2016). Meet the Robot Lawyers and Virtual Assistants. https://www.lexisnexis-es.co.uk/assets/files/legal-innovation.pdf
47. Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley [Article]. Cognition, 125(1), 125-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007
48. Greenleaf, G., Mowbray, A., & Chung, P. (2018). Building sustainable free legal advisory systems: Experiences from the history of AI & law. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 314-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.02.007
49. Gunkel, D. J. (2019). How to Survive a Robot Invasion: Rights, Responsibility, and AI (1st Edition ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427862
50. Hak, R., & Zeman, T. (2017). Consistent categorization of multimodal integration patterns during human-computer interaction [Article]. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 11(3), 251-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-017-0243-1
51. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction [Article]. Human Factors, 53(5), 517-527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
52. Handel, B., & Schwartzstein, J. (2018). Frictions or Mental Gaps: What's Behind the Information We (Don't) Use and When Do We Care? [Article]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(1), 155-178. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.1.155
53. Hashem, I. A. T., Yaqoob, I., Anuar, N. B., Mokhtar, S., Gani, A., & Khan, S. U. J. I. S. (2015). The rise of “big data” on cloud computing: Review and open research issues. 47, 98-115.
54. Hibbeln, M., Jenkins, J. L., Schneider, C., Valacich, J. S., & Weinmann, M. (2017). HOW IS YOUR USER FEELING? INFERRING EMOTION THROUGH HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION DEVICES [Article]. Mis Quarterly, 41(1), 1-+. ://WOS:000397047200002
55. Hildebrandt, M. (2018). Algorithmic regulation and the rule of law [Article]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2128), 11, Article 20170355. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0355
56. Hilt, K. (2017). What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian in the Advent of Artificial Intelligence? Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Information Et De Bibliotheconomie, 41(3), 211-227. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/686190
57. Hofree, G., Ruvolo, P., Reinert, A., Bartlett, M. S., & Winkielman, P. (2018). Behind the Robot's Smiles and Frowns: In Social Context, People Do Not Mirror Android's Expressions But React to Their Informational Value [Article]. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 12, 11, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2018.00014
58. Holder, C., Khurana, V., Harrison, F., & Jacobs, L. (2016). Robotics and law: Key legal and regulatory implications of the robotics age (Part I of II). Computer Law & Security Review, 32(3), 383-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2016.03.001
59. Hong, J.-W. (2022). I Was Born to Love AI: The Influence of Social Status on AI Self-Efficacy and Intentions to Use AI. International Journal of Communication, 16, 20.
60. Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2020). Engaged to a Robot? The Role of AI in Service. Journal of Service Research. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520902266
61. Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial Intelligence in Service [Article]. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517752459
62. Kauffman, M. E., & Soares, M. N. (2020). AI in legal services: new trends in AI-enabled legal services. Service Oriented Computing and Applications, 14(4), 223-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-020-00305-x
63. Khabibullina, A. S., Seleckaya, S. B., & Shpagonov, A. N. (2019). The problems of robotization of legal profession. Revista Genero & Direito, 8(6), 397-405. http://periodicos.ufpb.br/ojs2/index.php/ged/index
64. Khasianov, A., Alimova, I., Marchenko, A., Nurhambetova, G., Tutubalina, E., Zuev, D., & Ieee. (2018). Lawyer's Intellectual Tool for Analysis of Legal Documents in Russian. Ieee. https://doi.org/10.1109/ic-aiai.2018.00015
65. Kim, J. B. (2012). An empirical study on consumer first purchase intention in online shopping: integrating initial trust and TAM. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 125-150.
66. Klein, R. (2022). Regulating the Spread of Global ‘Intelligentization’. In.
67. Kralik, J. D., Mao, T., Cheng, Z., & Ray, L. E. (2016). Modeling incubation and restructuring for creative problem solving in robots [Article]. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 86, 162-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.025
68. Lee, W. H., & Kim, J. H. (2018). Hierarchical emotional episodic memory for social human robot collaboration [Article]. Autonomous Robots, 42(5), 1087-1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-017-9679-0
69. Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for information systems, 12(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01250
70. Leslie, D., Burr, C., Aitken, M., Katell, M., Briggs, M., & Rincon, C. (2022). Human rights, democracy, and the rule of law assurance framework for AI systems: A proposal. 341. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.02776
71. Lim, J. S., & Zhang, J. (2022). Adoption of AI-driven personalization in digital news platforms: An integrative model of technology acceptance and perceived contingency. Technology in Society, 69, 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101965
72. Lin, C.-Y., & Xu, N. (2021). Extended TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use AI robotic architects for architectural design. In Technology Analysis & Strategic Management (pp. 1-14). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1900808
73. Lopez, A. C. (2017). The Evolutionary Psychology of War: Offense and Defense in the Adapted Mind [Article]. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(4), 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917742720
74. MacDorman, K. F., Vasudevan, S. K., & Ho, C. C. (2009). Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. Ai & Society, 23(4), 485-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-008-0181-2
75. Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
76. Marcus, R. L. (2008). The Electronic Lawyer. DePaul L. Rev., 58, 263.
77. Masuyama, N., Loo, C. K., & Seera, M. (2018). Personality affected robotic emotional model with associative memory for human-robot interaction [Article]. Neurocomputing, 272, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.06.069
78. McClure, P. K. (2018). "You're Fired," Says the Robot: The Rise of Automation in the Workplace, Technophobes, and Fears of Unemployment [Article]. Social Science Computer Review, 36(2), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317698637
79. McLachlan, S., Kyrimi, E., Dube, K., Fenton, N., & Webley, L. C. (2022). Lawmaps: enabling legal AI development through visualisation of the implicit structure of legislation and lawyerly process. Artificial Intelligence and Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09298-0
80. McNally, P., & Inayatullah, S. J. F. (1988). The rights of robots: Technology, culture and law in the 21st century. Futures, 20(2), 119-136.
81. Mcnamar, R. T. (2009). Methods, systems and computer software utilizing xbrl to identify, capture, array, manage, transmit and display documents and data in litigation preparation, trial and regulatory filings and regulatory compliance (United States Patent No. U. S. Patent. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0030754.html
82. Menne, I. M., & Schwab, F. (2018). Faces of Emotion: Investigating Emotional Facial Expressions Towards a Robot [Article]. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(2), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0447-2
83. Mommers, L., Voermans, W., Koelewijn, W., & Kielman, H. (2009). Understanding the law: improving legal knowledge dissemination by translating the contents of formal sources of law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 17(1), 51-78.
84. Moses, L. B., & Chan, J. (2014). Using big data for legal and law enforcement decisions: Testing the new tools. UNSWLJ, 37, 643.
85. Nissan, E. (2017). Digital technologies and artificial intelligence's present and foreseeable impact on lawyering, judging, policing and law enforcement. Ai & Society, 32(3), 441-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0596-5
86. Ojha, S., Williams, M. A., & Johnston, B. (2018). The Essence of Ethical Reasoning in Robot-Emotion Processing [Article]. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(2), 211-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0459-y
87. Oleg, S., & Denis, P. (2018). Legal view on the introduction of new technologies. Russian Law Journal, 6(3), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-3-149-171
88. Olteteanu, A. M., Falomir, Z., & Freksa, C. (2018). Artificial Cognitive Systems That Can Answer Human Creativity Tests: An Approach and Two Case Studies [Article]. Ieee Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 10(2), 469-475. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcds.2016.2629622
89. Oskamp, A., & Lauritsen, M. (2002). AI in law practice? So far, not much. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10(4), 227-236.
90. Padovan, P. H., Martins, C. M., & Reed, C. (2022). Black is the new orange: how to determine AI liability. Artificial Intelligence and Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09308-9
91. Pagallo, U. (2011). Killers, fridges, and slaves: a legal journey in robotics. Ai & Society, 26(4), 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0316-0
92. Pagallo, U. (2013). Robots in the cloud with privacy: A new threat to data protection? Computer Law & Security Review, 29(5), 501-508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2013.07.012
93. Papakonstantinou, V., & De Hert, P. (2018). Structuring modern life running on software. Recognizing (some) computer programs as new "digital persons" [Article]. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(4), 732-738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.032
94. Park, Y. J., & Jones-Jang, S. M. (2022). Surveillance, security, and AI as technological acceptance. Ai & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01331-9
95. Parvez, M. O., Arasli, H., Ozturen, A., Lodhi, R. N., & Ongsakul, V. (2022). Antecedents of human-robot collaboration: theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 13(2), 240-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-09-2021-0267
96. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International journal of electronic commerce, 7(3), 101-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
97. Persaud, P., Varde, A. S., & Robila, S. A. (2017). Enhancing Autonomous Vehicles with Commonsense Smart Mobility in Smart Cities. In 2017 Ieee 29th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1008-1012). https://doi.org/10.1109/ictai.2017.00155
98. Pham, Q. C., Madhavan, R., Righetti, L., Smart, W., & Chatila, R. (2018). The Impact of Robotics and Automation on Working Conditions and Employment [Article]. Ieee Robotics & Automation Magazine, 25(2), 126-128. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2018.2822058
99. Pointeau, G., & Dominey, P. F. (2017). The Role of Autobiographical Memory in the Development of a Robot Self [Article]. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 11, 18, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2017.00027
100. Prakken, H. (2005). AI & Law, logic and argument schemes. Argumentation, 19(3), 303-320.
101. Ramirez-Gallego, S., Fernandez, A., Garcia, S., Chen, M., & Herrera, F. (2018). Big Data: Tutorial and guidelines on information and process fusion for analytics algorithms with MapReduce [Article]. Information Fusion, 42, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.10.001
102. Reif, J. A. M., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2017). When Do People Initiate a Negotiation? The Role of Discrepancy, Satisfaction, and Ability Beliefs [Article]. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 10(1), 46-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12089
103. Remus, D., & Levy, F. (2017). Can Robots Be Lawyers: Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 30, 501-.
104. Riesen, M., & Serpen, G. (2008). Validation of a bayesian belief network representation for posterior probability calculations on national crime victimization survey. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(3), 245-276.
105. Rissland, E. L., Ashley, K. D., & Loui, R. P. (2003). AI and law: a fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00122-X
106. Roca, J. C., Chiu, C. M., & Martinez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 683-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003
107. Schmitz, A. J. (2019). Expanding Access to Remedies through E-Court Initiatives. Buffalo Law Review, 67(1), 89-163. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol67/iss1/3?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu%2Fbuffalolawreview%2Fvol67%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
108. Schoenick, C., Clark, P., Tafjord, O., Turney, P., & Etzioni, O. (2017). Moving Beyond the Turing Test with the Allen AI Science Challenge [Article]. Communications of the Acm, 60(9), 60-64. https://doi.org/10.1145/3122814
109. Shestak, V. A., Volevodz, A. G., & Alizade, V. A. (2019). On the possibility of doctrinal perception of artificial intelligence as the subject of crime in the system of common law: Using the example of the US criminal legislation. Russian Journal of Criminology, 13(4), 547-554.
110. Sil, R., Roy, A., Bhushan, B., & Mazumdar, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence and machine learning based legal application: the state-of-the-art and future research trends. 2019 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS),
111. Simshaw, D. (2018). Ethical Issues in Robo-Lawyering: The Need for Guidance on Developing and Using Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law. Hastings Law Journal, 70(1), 173-212.
112. Song, X., Xu, B., & Zhao, Z. (2022). Can people experience romantic love for artificial intelligence? An empirical study of intelligent assistants. Information & Management, 59(2), 103595. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103595
113. Sonntag, M., Mehmann, J., & Teuteberg, F. (2022). AI-based Conversational Agents for Customer Service–A Study of Customer Service Representative’Perceptions Using TAM 2.
114. Stern, S. (2018). Introduction: Artificial intelligence, technology, and the law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 68(supplement 1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0102
115. Stockdale, M., & Mitchell, R. (2019). Legal advice privilege and artificial legal intelligence: Can robots give privileged legal advice? International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23(4), 422-439. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712719862296
116. Strnad, J. (2007). Should Legal Empiricists Go Bayesian? American Law and Economics Review, 9(1), 195-303.
117. Surendran, P. (2012). Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 2(4), 175-178. https://ideas.repec.org/a/mir/mirbus/v2y2012i4p175-178.html
118. Tung, K. (2019). AI, the internet of legal things, and lawyers. Journal of Management Analytics, 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2019.1671242
119. Vale, D., El-Sharif, A., & Ali, M. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) post-hoc explainability methods: risks and limitations in non-discrimination law. AI and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00142-y
120. Valente, A., & Breuker, J. (1994). Ontologies: The missing link between legal theory and AI & law. Legal knowledge based systems JURIX, 94, 138-150.
121. Volokh, E. (2019). Chief justice robots. Duke Law Journal, 68(6), 1135-1192.
122. Vonhippel, E. (1994). STICKY INFORMATION AND THE LOCUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING - IMPLICATIONS FOR INNOVATION [Article]. Management science, 40(4), 429-439. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429
123. Wang, D., Wang, P., & Shi, J. Z. (2018). A fast and efficient conformal regressor with regularized extreme learning machine [Article]. Neurocomputing, 304, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.012
124. Wichmann, A., Korkmaz, T., & Tosun, A. S. (2018). Robot Control Strategies for Task Allocation with Connectivity Constraints in Wireless Sensor and Robot Networks [Article]. Ieee Transactions on Mobile Computing, 17(6), 1429-1441. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmc.2017.2766635
125. Wiese, E., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A. (2017). Robots As Intentional Agents: Using Neuroscientific Methods to Make Robots Appear More Social [Review]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 19, Article 1663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663
126. Xu, N., & Wang, K.-J. (2018). Adopting robot lawyer? The extending artificial intelligence robot lawyer technology acceptance model for legal industry by an exploratory study. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.81
127. Yang, Z. L., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs [Article]. Psychology & Marketing, 21(10), 799-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20030
128. Yu, R., & Ali, G. S. (2019). What's Inside the Black Box? AI Challenges for Lawyers and Researchers. Legal Information Management, 19(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1472669619000021
129. Zeleznikow, J. (2002). An Australian perspective on research and development required for the construction of applied legal decision support systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10(4), 237-260.
130. Zlotowski, J., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2017). Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources [Article]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 100, 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.12.008
131. 張虎, 潘邦澤, 譚紅葉, & 李茹. (2021). 基於法律裁判文書的法律判決預測. 大數據, 7(05), 164-175. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/10.1321.G2.20210320.1737.002.html
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：684（臺灣：683，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1806188 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67602088
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上