<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>eDiscovery Journal &#187; Technology Assisted Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ediscoveryjournal.com/tag/technology-assisted-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com</link>
	<description>Your one-stop source for eDiscovery</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 20:13:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Kleen Products vs Da Silva Moore: Measurement vs Method</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/04/kleen-products-vs-da-silva-moore-measurement-vs-method/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/04/kleen-products-vs-da-silva-moore-measurement-vs-method/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Greg Buckles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC-TAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=193819</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have read more eDiscovery caselaw and commentary on these two matters in the last month than I ever wanted to. Although the issues around Technology Assisted Review (TAR) are important, it appears that the fervor and hype is being driven primarily by a wide variety of parties who are attempting to capitalize on the matters. Call me naïve, but it astounds me that any eDiscovery consultant or provider participating in an active case would publicize hearing transcripts, create press releases or otherwise put their own interests ahead of their clients. In Da Silva Moore the parties demonstrated laudable cooperation and agreement prior to the first hearing. They agreed to a relatively transparent protocol to tackle a massive collection. All of that has broken down and now there appears to be what could be a concerted effort to discredit magistrate judge Peck and force a recusal. Wow. Would this promising case have turned so acrimonious without the heavy publicity and marketing budgets of TAR providers? Possibly. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/04/kleen-products-vs-da-silva-moore-measurement-vs-method/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Technology-Assisted Review: The Need for Market Definition and Where We Stand Today</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/technology-assisted-review-the-need-for-market-definition-and-where-we-stand-today/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/technology-assisted-review-the-need-for-market-definition-and-where-we-stand-today/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mikki Tomlinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eca]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC-TAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=189321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Buzz about new technologies always precedes adoption.  And one of the outcomes of  “technology buzz” is development of the market definition to its consumers.  The market message and definition of Predictive Coding or Technology Assisted Review  (“TAR”) is, without a doubt, still evolving and there is certainly a plethora of buzz. The simple fact that we, as an industry, cannot agree on a general term for “it” is evidence enough that there are still a lot of untraveled roads that remain to be mapped.  “Predictive coding” was the first label that took hold as a result of the marketing efforts of an industry leader.  In his February 24, 2012 opinion in the Da Silva Moore, et al. vs. Publicis Groupe, et al. case, The Honorable Andrew J. Peck referred to it as “Computer Assisted Review”.  In the yet to be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/technology-assisted-review-the-need-for-market-definition-and-where-we-stand-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is this Predictive Coding thing Anyway?</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/what-is-this-predictive-coding-thing-anyway/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/what-is-this-predictive-coding-thing-anyway/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Rothman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC-TAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=187437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anyone who has read about e-Discovery in the past year has almost certainly come across the term “Predictive Coding” or one of its aliases. As exemplified by the number of seminars and vendor’s banners at Legal Tech in New York this past month, it’s definitely this year’s e-Discovery craze. However, like most technology trends, the term “Predictive Coding” has come to mean a lot of different things. While fighting my way through the throngs of legal techno-geeks on the LegalTech vendors floor, I came across no fewer than ten completely different definitions of the term. The definitions ranged from “a system that assists in separating the legal wheat from the chaff”, “a system that proposes to automatically cull data before its collected”, to “a system that provides “predictive” objective coding of scanned images”. Almost every vendor seemed to want to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/what-is-this-predictive-coding-thing-anyway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interview with Jeff Nadalo from TransCanada Pipeline &#8211; Predictive Coding and Why You Should Care About It</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/interview-with-jeff-nadalo-from-transcanada-pipeline-predictive-coding-and-why-you-should-care-about-it/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/interview-with-jeff-nadalo-from-transcanada-pipeline-predictive-coding-and-why-you-should-care-about-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amber Scorah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC-TAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=187018</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The paradigm of review is changing.  Predictive coding has made a huge impact in the e-discovery and document review world.  In this interview, I speak with Jeff Nadalo, Litigation Counsel at TransCanada Pipeline.  He helps cut through all the marketing jargon to give an understanding of the technical and realistic implications of predictive coding, and how it can affect your e-discovery practice. Amber Scorah: What do the courts think?  Is predictive coding defensible? Jeff Nadalo: I think we certainly are seeing that.  There are some recent cases coming out which are indicating that predictive coding is certainly an acceptable means of minimizing the resources that it takes to perform large-scale discovery. Amber Scorah: If your competitors are leveraging this technology, should you? Jeff Nadalo: TransCanada has invested heavily in predictive coding and I think the key reason is that it can pay for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/03/interview-with-jeff-nadalo-from-transcanada-pipeline-predictive-coding-and-why-you-should-care-about-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Honorable Andrew J. Peck on the Record with Predictive Coding:  Early Headlines Get it Wrong!</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/02/the-honorable-andrew-j-peck-on-the-record-with-predictive-coding-early-headlines-get-it-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/02/the-honorable-andrew-j-peck-on-the-record-with-predictive-coding-early-headlines-get-it-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mikki Tomlinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC-TAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=182227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As hinted to be forthcoming during the LTNY Man vs. Machine: The Promise/Challenge of Predictive Coding &#38; Other Disruptive Technologies session, The Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, is now on record on the topic of Predictive Coding – Technology Assisted Review (“PC-TAR”) in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al. case.  Word of the ruling traveled quickly throughout the eDiscovery blogosphere early yesterday.  But the headlines got it wrong! Early reports claimed that Judge Peck ordered the use of PC-TAR.  Unfortunately, it appears that claim stuck as evidenced by the many bloggers that have reported the same information.  But it is wrong!  The ruling is in no way a mandate or an order to use PC-TAR. The parties in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/02/the-honorable-andrew-j-peck-on-the-record-with-predictive-coding-early-headlines-get-it-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taking stock of the eDiscovery world</title>
		<link>http://chrisdale.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/taking-stock-of-the-ediscovery-world/</link>
		<comments>http://chrisdale.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/taking-stock-of-the-ediscovery-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:25:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>eDJ Syndicator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrisdale.wordpress.com/?p=6939</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a good moment to pause a little and look around the eDiscovery / eDisclosure world.  The wide range of topics which make this such an interesting field are all getting an airing at once. The stream of useful and relevant tweets is such that I ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chrisdale.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/taking-stock-of-the-ediscovery-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Keyword Search an Ethical Option?</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/02/is-keyword-search-an-ethical-option-2/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/02/is-keyword-search-an-ethical-option-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lynn Frances</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC-TAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=180883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Predictive Coding, or Technology Assisted Review (TAR) was the subject of five sessions at LegalTech. Even when it wasn’t the focus of a session, it was often mentioned. Why? Probably because so many of the eDiscovery experts have been busy reminding us of how ineffective our traditional means of identifying relevant documents actually are. As far back as 1985, the Blair &#38; Maron study found that, though reviewers believed that their keywords had identified 75% of the relevant documents, in reality, they had uncovered only 20%.  In the more recent 2009 Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) study, keyword searches were even less effective: finding only 9% of the relevant documents. In contrast, the TREC study found that predictive coding techniques, techniques that transmit the decision criteria of expert reviewers across the data set, had an average recall rate of 41%. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/02/is-keyword-search-an-ethical-option-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Research Evolves On Predictive Coding-Technology Assisted Review (PC-TAR)</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/01/research-evolves-on-predictive-coding-technology-assisted-review-pc-tar/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/01/research-evolves-on-predictive-coding-technology-assisted-review-pc-tar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Barry Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC-TAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=174724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of eDJ’s predictions for 2012 is that PC-TAR (predictive coding-technology assisted review) goes mainstream.  Instead of just sitting and waiting to see what happens with PC-TAR, we are actively researching it.  Watch for the launch of an eDJ survey on the topic next week (and the chance to win yet another prize from eDJ for participating in our research).  Jason Velasco did a call-out for anyone using PC-TAR to speak with us and we’ve been able to talk to actual practitioners.  I want to quickly share some of what we are learning and call for anyone else trying PC-TAR to email us and share your story.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2012/01/research-evolves-on-predictive-coding-technology-assisted-review-pc-tar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

