Michael Evans
Georgia State University
9 Papers
39 Citations
Michael Evans is an academic researcher from Georgia State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Legal research. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 9 publications. Previous affiliations of Michael Evans include University of Maryland, College Park.
Chat about Author
Papers
Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe the basics of text classification, suggest applications of the technique to enhance empirical legal research and political science more broadly, and report results of experiments designed to test the strengths and weaknesses of alternative approaches for classifying the positions and interpreting the content of advocacy briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.
101
Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research
TL;DR: The basics of text classification are described, applications of this technique to enhance empirical legal research (and political science more broadly), and results of experiments designed to test the strengths and weaknesses of alternative text classification models for classifying the positions and interpreting the content of briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court are reported.
70
Perpetuating the Myth of the Culture War Court? Issue Attention in Newspaper Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Nominations
TL;DR: Using digital text analysis methods, the authors analyzed over 3800 newspaper articles covering U.S. Supreme Court judicial appointments between 1981 and 2009 to measure the level of (in)congruence between t...
50
Recounting the Courts? Toward A Text-Centered Computational Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of the Judicial System
Michael Evans,Wayne V. McIntosh,Cynthia L. Cates,Jimmy Lin +3 more
- 01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the potential uses of computational linguistics techniques for analyzing Supreme Court briefs and opinions, focusing on advocacy documents associated with the two recent University of Michigan affirmative action cases.
The Reality of Jurisprudence(?): Interpretive Methods in the Opinions of Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer
TL;DR: For example, this paper found that Justices Scalia and Breyer differ markedly in the interpretive approaches used most often in their opinions and that the differences are consistent with their distinct jurisprudential philosophies.
8