{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.258Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-19", "slug": "ewert-v-canada", "titleZh": "Ewert 诉加拿大惩教署算法评估案", "formalName": "Ewert v. Canada (Correctional Service)", "aliases": [ "Ewert v Canada", "SCC 37233" ], "summary": "加拿大最高法院认定，惩教机构未采取合理步骤验证风险评估工具对原住民服刑人员是否有效，违反法定义务。", "professionalSummary": "2018 SCC 30 依据《矫正与有条件释放法》第 24(1) 条审查信息准确性，裁判并未全面禁止使用统计评估工具。", "whyItMatters": "它把自动化或统计决策工具的群体有效性验证变成公共机构的法律义务。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "automated-decision-making", "secondaryTopics": [ "discrimination", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ], "jurisdiction": "加拿大·最高法院", "industries": [ "刑事司法", "公共管理" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 27, "impactScope": 22, "institutionalLevel": 20, "crossBorder": 5, "sustainedCoverage": 12, "total": 86 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": false, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-19:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-19", "formalName": "Ewert v. Canada (Correctional Service)", "identifier": "SCC 37233", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "37233", "neutralCitation": "2018 SCC 30" }, "forum": "Supreme Court of Canada", "jurisdiction": "加拿大·最高法院", "type": "judicial-review", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2018-06-13", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "officialUrl": "https://www.scc-csc.ca/judgments-jugements/cb/2018/37233/" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-19:event-1", "matterId": "matter-19", "proceedingId": "matter-19:proceeding-1", "date": "2018-06-13", "type": "judgment", "title": "加拿大最高法院部分准许上诉", "summary": "加拿大最高法院认定惩教署未采取合理步骤确保相关工具对原住民服刑人员产生准确、最新和完整的信息。", "documentIds": [ "matter-19:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-19:claim-1", "matter-19:claim-procedure", "matter-19:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-19:document-1", "familyId": "matter-19:family-1", "matterId": "matter-19", "eventId": "matter-19:event-1", "title": "Ewert v. Canada — 2018 SCC 30", "originalTitle": "Ewert v. Canada — 2018 SCC 30", "url": "https://www.scc-csc.ca/judgments-jugements/cb/2018/37233/", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "scc", "publishedAt": "2018-06-13", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "37233", "neutralCitation": "2018 SCC 30" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-19:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-19", "eventId": "matter-19:event-1", "text": "加拿大最高法院认定惩教署未采取合理步骤确保相关工具对原住民服刑人员产生准确、最新和完整的信息。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-19:document-1" ], "asOf": "2018-06-13" }, { "id": "matter-19:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-19", "eventId": "matter-19:event-1", "text": "SCC 37233 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 Supreme Court of Canada 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-19:document-1" ], "asOf": "2018-06-13" }, { "id": "matter-19:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-19", "eventId": "matter-19:event-1", "text": "2018-06-13，案卷记录“加拿大最高法院部分准许上诉”这一程序节点；该日期与事件由所引直接材料支持。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-19:document-1" ], "asOf": "2018-06-13" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "原住民服刑人员 Ewert 挑战加拿大惩教署使用多项统计风险评估工具，认为这些工具没有被合理验证是否适用于原住民群体。加拿大最高法院依据《矫正与有条件释放法》第 24(1) 条认定惩教署未采取合理步骤确保信息准确、最新和完整，但没有全面禁止使用评估工具。", "partiesZh": [ "Jeffrey G. Ewert", "加拿大惩教署" ], "aiSystemZh": "惩教风险与再犯评估工具", "challengedConductZh": "在缺少针对原住民服刑人员充分验证的情况下使用统计风险评分影响惩教决策。", "allegedHarmZh": "Ewert 主张工具可能对原住民产生不准确评估并影响其待遇；法院确认验证义务违反。", "proceduralOriginZh": "案件以 SCC 37233 进入加拿大最高法院，法院于 2018 年 6 月 13 日作出 2018 SCC 30 并部分准许上诉。", "claimIds": [ "matter-19:claim-1", "matter-19:claim-procedure", "matter-19:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-19:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation", "matterId": "matter-19", "titleZh": "对原住民群体的有效性验证", "questionZh": "惩教署在使用风险工具评估原住民服刑人员前，是否必须采取合理步骤验证其群体适用性？", "contextZh": "总体开发样本中的表现不能自动证明工具对历史和社会条件不同的原住民群体同样准确。", "topic": "automated-decision-making", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "最高法院认定惩教署未采取合理步骤确保工具对原住民产生准确、最新和完整的信息。", "claimIds": [ "matter-19:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation:position-1", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation", "sideZh": "Ewert", "positionZh": "主张工具未经适当验证，不能可靠用于原住民服刑人员。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation:position-2", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation", "sideZh": "加拿大惩教署", "positionZh": "未能说服法院其已履行针对该群体采取合理验证步骤的法定义务。", "claimIds": [ "matter-19:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-19:document-1" ] } ] }, { "id": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty", "matterId": "matter-19", "titleZh": "公共机构的信息准确义务", "questionZh": "第 24(1) 条关于准确、最新和完整信息的义务，是否覆盖风险评估工具产生的分数？", "contextZh": "风险分数被公共机构用于个体决策时，其统计来源并不使其脱离法定信息质量义务。", "topic": "public-law-human-rights", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "最高法院将法定信息准确义务适用于惩教署所使用的相关风险评估信息。", "claimIds": [ "matter-19:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty:position-1", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty", "sideZh": "Ewert", "positionZh": "认为风险分数属于影响其处遇的信息，必须满足法定质量要求。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty:position-2", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty", "sideZh": "加拿大惩教署", "positionZh": "在该法定义务的履行问题上未获最高法院支持。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails", "matterId": "matter-19", "titleZh": "全面禁用还是附条件使用", "questionZh": "确认验证不足后，法院是否全面禁止所有统计风险评估工具？", "contextZh": "裁判针对合理验证和信息质量义务，而不是对统计工具作一般性禁令。", "topic": "automated-decision-making", "status": "open", "claimIds": [], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails:position-1", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails", "sideZh": "Ewert", "positionZh": "要求纠正未经验证工具对其产生的影响。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails:position-2", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails", "sideZh": "法院裁判范围", "positionZh": "以确认法定义务违反处理案件，没有宣布所有工具或所有使用场景违法。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-19:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-19", "proceedingId": "matter-19:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-19:event-1", "date": "2018-06-13", "outcomeZh": "加拿大最高法院部分准许 Ewert 上诉，认定惩教署未采取合理步骤验证相关风险工具对原住民服刑人员的有效性。", "holdingsZh": [ "风险评估信息受法定准确、最新和完整要求约束。", "惩教署没有履行针对原住民群体采取合理验证步骤的义务。", "裁判不构成对所有统计评估工具的全面禁令。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "群体差异可能影响工具准确性，公共机构不能在缺少合理验证时把一般结果直接用于原住民服刑人员。", "风险评分进入个体惩教决策后属于具有法律后果的信息，须满足法定质量义务。" ], "reliefZh": "部分准许上诉并确认惩教署违反验证与信息准确义务；没有颁发全面禁止所有风险工具的禁令。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "结论针对加拿大惩教署、相关工具和原住民适用性，不对所有算法决策系统作普遍有效性判断。", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "appealStatusZh": "2018 SCC 30 是加拿大最高法院终局且有约束力的判决，没有更高国内上诉程序。", "documentIds": [ "matter-19:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-19:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-19-matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation-knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation", "documentId": "knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "relationship": "technical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为能力陈述、测试边界、风险监测和组织问责提供通用技术治理框架；它不替代具体产品和案件证据。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-19-matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-19-matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty-knowledge-technological-due-process", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty", "documentId": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为通知、说明理由、申辩、人工复核和系统纠错等自动化决定程序保障提供基础框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-19-matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-19-matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails-knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails", "documentId": "knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "relationship": "technical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为能力陈述、测试边界、风险监测和组织问责提供通用技术治理框架；它不替代具体产品和案件证据。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-19-matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-19-matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation-knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation", "documentId": "knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "relationship": "technical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为能力陈述、测试边界、风险监测和组织问责提供通用技术治理框架；它不替代具体产品和案件证据。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "familyId": "knowledge-family-nist-ai-rmf", "title": "人工智能风险管理框架 1.0", "originalTitle": "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)", "url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "nist", "publishedAt": "2023-01-26", "author": "Elham Tabassi", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "以治理、映射、测量和管理四组功能组织 AI 风险控制，要求把能力陈述、测试边界、受影响群体、持续监测和问责责任落实到具体使用场景。它是风险管理框架，不直接决定个案法律责任。", "venue": "NIST AI 100-1", "publisher": "National Institute of Standards and Technology", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1" }, "legalTopics": [ "consumer-protection", "product-liability", "automated-decision-making", "professional-responsibility", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision", "model-output", "agentic-action", "judicial-professional-use" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-19-matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-indigenous-validation", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "familyId": "news-family-risk-model-proxy-bias", "title": "风险模型的‘厨房水槽’方法如何隐藏偏差", "originalTitle": "How Bias Hides in ‘Kitchen Sink’ Approaches to Data", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/how-bias-hides-kitchen-sink-approaches-data", "kind": "factual-report", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2024-05-30", "author": "Andrew Myers", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "机构报道介绍风险评分中的标签偏差：模型可能高度准确地预测代理指标，却没有测量真正关心的再犯、公共安全或医疗需要，并以刑事司法风险评估为例说明后果。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "文章把风险评分的技术准确性与被预测目标是否恰当分开，适合解释刑事司法和公共管理中的验证义务；它不证明某一具体工具必然存在同样偏差。", "legalTopics": [ "automated-decision-making", "discrimination", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-19-matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty-knowledge-technological-due-process", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty", "documentId": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为通知、说明理由、申辩、人工复核和系统纠错等自动化决定程序保障提供基础框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "familyId": "knowledge-family-technological-due-process", "title": "技术性正当程序", "originalTitle": "Technological Due Process", "url": "https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol85/iss6/2/", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "washington-university-law-review", "publishedAt": "2008", "author": "Danielle Keats Citron", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "指出自动化行政决定把规则制定和个案裁判混合，却可能同时绕开两类程序保障；提出围绕透明、质量控制、申辩机会和可纠错性的技术性正当程序。", "venue": "Washington University Law Review 85: 1249–1313", "publisher": "Washington University Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "repository-record", "value": "wustl-law-review:85:6:2" }, "legalTopics": [ "public-law-human-rights", "automated-decision-making" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-19-matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-information-accuracy-duty", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "familyId": "news-family-risk-model-proxy-bias", "title": "风险模型的‘厨房水槽’方法如何隐藏偏差", "originalTitle": "How Bias Hides in ‘Kitchen Sink’ Approaches to Data", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/how-bias-hides-kitchen-sink-approaches-data", "kind": "factual-report", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2024-05-30", "author": "Andrew Myers", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "机构报道介绍风险评分中的标签偏差：模型可能高度准确地预测代理指标，却没有测量真正关心的再犯、公共安全或医疗需要，并以刑事司法风险评估为例说明后果。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "文章把风险评分的技术准确性与被预测目标是否恰当分开，适合解释刑事司法和公共管理中的验证义务；它不证明某一具体工具必然存在同样偏差。", "legalTopics": [ "automated-decision-making", "discrimination", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-19-matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails-knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails", "documentId": "knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "relationship": "technical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为能力陈述、测试边界、风险监测和组织问责提供通用技术治理框架；它不替代具体产品和案件证据。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-nist-ai-rmf", "familyId": "knowledge-family-nist-ai-rmf", "title": "人工智能风险管理框架 1.0", "originalTitle": "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)", "url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "nist", "publishedAt": "2023-01-26", "author": "Elham Tabassi", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "以治理、映射、测量和管理四组功能组织 AI 风险控制，要求把能力陈述、测试边界、受影响群体、持续监测和问责责任落实到具体使用场景。它是风险管理框架，不直接决定个案法律责任。", "venue": "NIST AI 100-1", "publisher": "National Institute of Standards and Technology", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1" }, "legalTopics": [ "consumer-protection", "product-liability", "automated-decision-making", "professional-responsibility", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision", "model-output", "agentic-action", "judicial-professional-use" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-19-matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-19", "issueId": "matter-19:issue-ban-or-guardrails", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "familyId": "news-family-risk-model-proxy-bias", "title": "风险模型的‘厨房水槽’方法如何隐藏偏差", "originalTitle": "How Bias Hides in ‘Kitchen Sink’ Approaches to Data", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/how-bias-hides-kitchen-sink-approaches-data", "kind": "factual-report", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2024-05-30", "author": "Andrew Myers", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "机构报道介绍风险评分中的标签偏差：模型可能高度准确地预测代理指标，却没有测量真正关心的再犯、公共安全或医疗需要，并以刑事司法风险评估为例说明后果。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "文章把风险评分的技术准确性与被预测目标是否恰当分开，适合解释刑事司法和公共管理中的验证义务；它不证明某一具体工具必然存在同样偏差。", "legalTopics": [ "automated-decision-making", "discrimination", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "scc", "slug": "scc", "name": "Supreme Court of Canada", "homepage": "https://www.scc-csc.ca/", "type": "court", "grade": "A", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 98 }, "rationale": "法院、政府或监管机构自有发布渠道；程序状态以其正式文书与登记信息为准。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "id": "nist", "slug": "nist", "name": "National Institute of Standards and Technology", "homepage": "https://www.nist.gov/", "type": "government", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "rationale": "美国政府技术机构自有出版渠道，报告具有正式编号、作者、修订日期和 DOI。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 98 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "stanford-hai", "slug": "stanford-hai", "name": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "homepage": "https://hai.stanford.edu/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "mixed", "rationale": "大学研究机构发布研究、政策简报与新闻；按具体作者和文类区分一手研究与机构评论。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 90 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } }, { "id": "washington-university-law-review", "slug": "washington-university-law-review", "name": "Washington University Law Review", "homepage": "https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑法学评论，学校仓储提供稳定卷期、作者、摘要和全文定位。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 17, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 87 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/ewert-v-canada" }