In this paper we investigate how to categorize text excerpts from Italian normative texts. Although text categorization is a problem of broader interest, we single out a specific issue. Namely, we are concerned with categorizing the set of subjects in which Italian Regions are allowed to produce norms: this is the so-called residual legislative power problem. It basically consists in making explicit a set of subjects that was originally defined only in a residual and negative fashion. The categorization of legal text fragments is acknowledged to be a difficult problem, featured by abstract concepts along with a variety of locutions used to denote them, by convoluted sentence structure, and by several other facets. In addition, in the present case subjects are often partially overlapped, and a training set of sufficient size (for the problem under consideration) does not exist: all these aspects make our task challenging. In this setting, classical feature-based approaches provide poor quality results, so we explored algorithms based on compression techniques. We tested three such techniques: we illustrate their main features and report the results of an experimentation where our implementation of such algorithms is compared with the output of standard machine learning algorithms. Far from having found a silver bullet, we show that compression-based techniques provide the best results for the problem at hand, and argue that these approaches can be effectively coupled with more informative and semantically grounded ones.
Le elezioni regionali piemontesi del 2010 sono state portate all'attenzione della magistratura sotto diversi profili. Tra gli altri - meno noti, ma non meno importanti - quelli relativi alle posizioni di due consiglieri sottoposte al Tribunale di Torino a seguito di azioni popolari ai sensi della legge n. 108/1968. Sorprendentemente la stessa sezione del Tribunale, in composizione collegiale coincidente per due terzi (tra cui il presidente), ha dato a questioni analoghe, inerenti le diverse posizioni chiamate in causa, soluzioni radicalmente differenti, senza che di questo utilizzo ambivalente del diritto sia stata offerta alcuna motivazione. Difficile sottrarsi al dubbio che, in situazioni sensibili, anche per la giurisdizione i profili politici finiscano per prevalere su quelli giuridici.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.