SentenceTransformer based on sentence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2

Model Details

Model Description

• Model Type: Sentence Transformer
• Base model: sentence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2
• Maximum Sequence Length: 192 tokens
• Output Dimensionality: 768 dimensions
• Similarity Function: Cosine Similarity
• Training Datasets:
  • coliee
  • legal_qa
  • law_stack
  • legal_lens
  • cuad_qa
  • privacy_qa
  • legal_sum
  • aus_legal_qa
• Language: en

Model Sources

• Documentation: Sentence Transformers Documentation
• Repository: Sentence Transformers on GitHub
• Hugging Face: Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face

Full Model Architecture

SentenceTransformer(
  (0): Transformer({'max_seq_length': 192, 'do_lower_case': False}) with Transformer model: MPNetModel 
  (1): Pooling({'word_embedding_dimension': 768, 'pooling_mode_cls_token': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_tokens': True, 'pooling_mode_max_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_sqrt_len_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_weightedmean_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_lasttoken': False, 'include_prompt': True})
  (2): Normalize()
)

Usage

Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers)

Evaluation

Metrics

Information Retrieval

• Datasets: mteb/AILA_casedocs, mteb/AILA_statutes, mteb/legalbench_consumer_contracts_qa, mteb/legalbench_corporate_lobbying and mteb/legal_summarization
• Evaluated with InformationRetrievalEvaluator

Training Details

Training Datasets

coliee

• Dataset: coliee at d90012e
• Size: 9,260 training samples
• Columns: anchor, positive, and negative
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive	negative
  type	string	string	string
  details	min: 11 tokens mean: 41.76 tokens max: 99 tokens	min: 25 tokens mean: 119.1 tokens max: 192 tokens	min: 14 tokens mean: 113.91 tokens max: 192 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive	negative
  [object Object]A compulsory auction is also a sale, so warranty is imposed the same as for an ordinary sale.[object Object]	[object Object]Article 568[object Object](1) The successful bidder at an auction based on the provisions of the Civil Execution Act and other laws (hereinafter referred to as an "auction" in this Article) may cancel the contract or demand a reduction of the price against the obligor pursuant to the provisions of Articles 541 and 542 and the provisions of Article 563[object Object](including as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 565).[object Object](2) In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, if the obligor is insolvent, the successful bidder may demand total or partial reimbursement of the proceeds against the obligees that received the distribution of the proceeds.[object Object](3) In the cases set forth in the preceding two paragraphs, if obligors knew of the absence of the object or right and did not disclose the same, or if obligees knew of the absence but demanded an auction, the successful bidder may claim compensation for loss or damage against those persons.[object Object](4) The provisions of the preceding three paragraphs do not apply ...	[object Object]Article 575[object Object](1) If the subject matter of a sale which has not yet been delivered bears fruits, the fruits vest in the seller.[object Object](2) The buyer bears the obligation to pay interest on the price beginning from the day of delivery;provided, however, that if a due date is provided for the payment of the price, it is not necessary to pay the interest until that due date arrives..[object Object]
  [object Object]A compulsory auction is also a sale, so warranty is imposed the same as for an ordinary sale.[object Object]	[object Object]Article 568[object Object](1) The successful bidder at an auction based on the provisions of the Civil Execution Act and other laws (hereinafter referred to as an "auction" in this Article) may cancel the contract or demand a reduction of the price against the obligor pursuant to the provisions of Articles 541 and 542 and the provisions of Article 563[object Object](including as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 565).[object Object](2) In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, if the obligor is insolvent, the successful bidder may demand total or partial reimbursement of the proceeds against the obligees that received the distribution of the proceeds.[object Object](3) In the cases set forth in the preceding two paragraphs, if obligors knew of the absence of the object or right and did not disclose the same, or if obligees knew of the absence but demanded an auction, the successful bidder may claim compensation for loss or damage against those persons.[object Object](4) The provisions of the preceding three paragraphs do not apply ...	[object Object]Article 596[object Object]The provisions of Article 551[object Object]apply mutatis mutandis to loans for use.[object Object]Article 551[object Object](1) The donor is presumed to have promised to deliver or transfer the thing or right that is the subject matter of the gift, while maintaining its condition as of the time when it is specified as the subject matter of the gift.[object Object](2) With respect to gifts with burden, the donor provides the same warranty as that of a seller, to the extent of that burden..[object Object]
  [object Object]A compulsory auction is also a sale, so warranty is imposed the same as for an ordinary sale.[object Object]	[object Object]Article 568[object Object](1) The successful bidder at an auction based on the provisions of the Civil Execution Act and other laws (hereinafter referred to as an "auction" in this Article) may cancel the contract or demand a reduction of the price against the obligor pursuant to the provisions of Articles 541 and 542 and the provisions of Article 563[object Object](including as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 565).[object Object](2) In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, if the obligor is insolvent, the successful bidder may demand total or partial reimbursement of the proceeds against the obligees that received the distribution of the proceeds.[object Object](3) In the cases set forth in the preceding two paragraphs, if obligors knew of the absence of the object or right and did not disclose the same, or if obligees knew of the absence but demanded an auction, the successful bidder may claim compensation for loss or damage against those persons.[object Object](4) The provisions of the preceding three paragraphs do not apply ...	[object Object]Article 520[object Object]If a claim and obligation becomes vested in the same person, such claim is extinguished;provided, however, that this does not apply if such a claim is the subject matter of the right of a third party..[object Object]

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
  json

  1{ 2 "scale": 50.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim" 4}

legal_qa

• Dataset: legal_qa at bbe3790
• Size: 3,742 training samples
• Columns: anchor and positive
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive
  type	string	string
  details	min: 13 tokens mean: 108.12 tokens max: 192 tokens	min: 6 tokens mean: 130.94 tokens max: 192 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive
  Q: I was wondering if a pain management office is acting illegally/did an illegal action.. I was discharged as a patient from a pain management office after them telling me that a previous pain management specialist I saw administered a steroid shot wrong and I told them in the portal that I spoke to lawyers for advice but no lawsuit/case was created. It was maybe 1-2 months after I was discharged that I no longer have access to my patient portal with them. Every time I try to login I enter my credentials, wait a few seconds, and then I get re-directed back to the original screen where I have various options to login. I know I can speak to the office directly and ask them about what specifically is going on, talk to other lawyers if this is a violation of my rights, etc. but I was just wondering if anyone on this site would know if this action is in fact illegal.	A:In Kentucky, your situation raises questions about patient rights and medical records access. If you were discharged from a pain management office and subsequently lost access to your patient portal, it's important to understand your rights regarding medical records. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), you have the right to access your own medical records. A healthcare provider cannot deny you access to your records, even if you were discharged from their practice. The issue with the patient portal could be a technical glitch or a deliberate action, but either way, it needs to be addressed. You should contact the pain management office directly to inquire about the issue with the patient portal. They are obligated to provide you with a way to access your medical records, which may include providing paper copies or access through a different electronic means. If the office is unresponsive or refuses to provide access to your records, consider speakin...
  Q: My houseboat was moved while I was at work and was asked to leave the property after 16 months without any notices.. Management told me that he didn’t like those kind of people that came to visit me. I went on vacation and when I came back my electrical cord was missing and my water hose was cut in pieces. He than got of hold of me and said I have your boat and that he was putting a lien on it for back rent. I never received any notices from management. He than told me that he wanted me to leave the property and that he would hold my boat until i found another parking spot for it. I finally found a parking spot a year later and I find out that he liened my houseboat and was selling it and told me to sue him and gave me his lawyers contact. What options do I have. I now am homeless and I lost my job and seeing myself falling as time goes. Any help would be appreciated.	A:If your houseboat was moved without your permission and you were asked to leave the property after 16 months without any notices, and the management has placed a lien on your houseboat and is attempting to sell it, you may have legal options to challenge their actions. First, you may want to consult with an attorney who specializes in property law or landlord-tenant law to review your case and provide guidance on your legal rights and options. It may also be helpful to gather any evidence you have, such as receipts or documentation of payments or communications with the management, to support your case. Some potential legal claims you may have against the management include breach of contract, conversion, or wrongful eviction. These claims may allow you to seek damages or other forms of relief, such as the return of your houseboat or compensation for any losses you have suffered. It's important to act quickly, as there may be deadlines or other requirements for filing a legal claim. ...
  Q: Wondering if I could sue a dealership if I’ve had to replace my transmission 2 times within a year. I’ve had to replace my transmission now 2 different times in 10 months of owning my 2018 Ford Expedition. My first replacement was $5,200 and then 1 1/2 months later the transmission went out and now they are working on it again	A:Yes, you can sue a dealership if you have had to replace your transmission 2 times within a year. Whether you will be successful depends on the facts and your presentation. You don't mention anything about any written agreements. Allowing an attorney to evaluate, organize and draft your conciliation or (small claims) complaint (up to $15,000) would be a wise investment. A well polished complaint will not only provide the judge a solid foundation to rule in your favor, but a detailed outline on which to base your oral argument. It would provide you a distinct advantage over the opposing party. The fees can be reasonable depending on the attorney.

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
  json

  1{ 2 "scale": 50.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim" 4}

law_stack

• Dataset: law_stack at b19a371
• Size: 13,000 training samples
• Columns: anchor and positive
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive
  type	string	string
  details	min: 27 tokens mean: 141.93 tokens max: 192 tokens	min: 15 tokens mean: 166.18 tokens max: 192 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive
  Why is drunk driving causing accident punished so much worse than just drunk driving? When people drink and drive and then cause an accident especially where if someone dies they get years and years in prison but just the act of drunk driving is punished way more lenient. Shouldn't the 2, drunk driving and drunk driving then causing accident be similarly punished? I feel like a lot of times it's luck whether an accident happens.	Moral luck You have raised the issue of moral luck, a long recognized problem in criminal theory. The classic expositions of this issue are by Thomas Nagel, in his chapter, "Moral Luck" (1979) and Bernard Williams, "Moral Luck" (1976). Specifically, you are describing what they call outcome luck, or consequential luck. Driving while intoxicated vs. driving while intoxicated and causing death is not the only example where moral luck results in a distinction in punishment. Other examples are: dangerous driving vs. dangerous driving that causes death a successful offence vs. an attempted offence (generally resulting in a maximum sentence less than that of the successful offence) Nagel writes: If someone has had too much to drink and his car swerves on to the sidewalk, he can count himself morally lucky if there are no pedestrians in its path. If there were, he would be to blame for their deaths, and would probably be prosecuted for manslaughter. But if he hurts no one,...
  Question Concerning Responding to Employer of Minor Daughter Paid Under Minimum Wage My high school daughter worked for about a year for an employer who owns a tutoring company in our town. Due to friction between my daughter and the employer, my daughter recently quit but she realized that she was being underpaid for much of this year (2023) because the minimum wage here in California is currently $15.50 for 2023 but she was still getting paid $14.00, the California minimum wage for 2022, when she recently quit (in August 2023). Now according to my daughter there is a provision in California law which allows employers to pay only 85% of minimum wage for new workers with no prior experience for their first 160 hours of work. For 2023, that "new worker" wage level would work out to $13.17 per hour, but my daughter said that she exceeded her first 160 hours of work for the employer back in March 2023. So, basically, my daughter was being paid under the proper CA 2023 minimum wa...	Read the terms It’s quite likely that, if you took this to court, the employer would be liable to pay your daughter interest on the underpayment and possibly be fined by the state for failing to follow the law. The terms probably are offering to pay the back pay with no interest and your daughter agreeing to confidentiality about the breach. Probably - I haven’t read them. In other words, they’re asking her to sign a contract saying she gets $XXX now, and can’t make any further claims against them. Such releases are commonplace when setting a dispute and there’s probably nothing underhanded going on. Probably - I haven’t read them. Because minors can void contracts if they are not in their interest, they want you, as her legal guardian, to also sign so that can’t happen. A relatively prudent precaution on their part. The alternative is to not sign the document and they presumably won’t pay. It will then be up to you whether to sue them which will cost you money, possibly more than you ...
  Can Hawaii secede from the U.S. through legal means? Can Hawaii secede from the U.S. through legal means or is it forbidden by U.S. law? I am asking, because I doubt the U.S. would accept the result of a referendum that rules that the Hawaiians want to secede from the U.S. just like Russia or China wouldn't accept it.	Currently, there is no legal means for a state to secede form the U.S. A quick Google search yields So you want to secede from the U.S.: A four-step guide - The Washington Post: "When the Confederate states seceded in 1861 and were then defeated in the Civil War, the argument is that they demonstrated that you can't secede from the Union. The 1869 Supreme Court case TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL (Legal Information Institute) determined that the secession was never actually a real thing in the eyes of the federal government. The Confederate States of America wasn't an independent country any more than your house is its own country simply because you say it is. 'The Constitution, in all its provisions,' the justices wrote, 'looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.'" Also from that Post piece: In 2006, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked by screenwriter Dan Turkewitz if the idea of Maine seceding from the country made sense as a possible plot point. Scalia, perhap...

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
  json

  1{ 2 "scale": 50.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim" 4}

legal_lens

• Dataset: legal_lens at a4c8193
• Size: 107 training samples
• Columns: anchor and positive
• Approximate statistics based on the first 107 samples:

  	anchor	positive
  type	string	string
  details	min: 107 tokens mean: 164.29 tokens max: 192 tokens	min: 27 tokens mean: 78.31 tokens max: 192 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive
  DEFENDANT has agreed to a $72,250 settlement to resolve claims that it violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by scanning the hands and fingerprints of its employees without obtaining prior consent. The settlement benefits employees in Illinois who had their fingers or hands scanned by a timekeeping system between Dec. 31, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2020, without first signing a consent form. Although DEFENDANT has not admitted any wrongdoing, it agreed to the settlement to resolve the BIPA allegations. Class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund, estimated to be around $352.75 per worker. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 15, 2023, and the final approval hearing for the BIPA settlement is scheduled for June 15, 2023. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement.	Y'know, it's funny how things turn out sometimes. I was working this job, right? Nothing fancy, just clocking in and out, doing my thing. They had this newfangled tech system for logging our hours, some sort of hand scan thing. Thought it was pretty cool, not gonna lie. High-tech, right? Made me feel like I was in a sci-fi movie or something.[object Object][object Object]But then, things started to get a bit weird. I mean, I didn't notice anything at first, but after a while, it kinda felt off, y'know? Like, I couldn't shake the feeling that something was not right. I mean, it's just a hand scanner, right? What could possibly go wrong?[object Object][object Object]And then, outta nowhere, I heard this rumor going around about some sort of issue with the hand scanner. Something about not getting the proper consents or something. It was all a bit hush-hush, and no one was really talking about it openly. But you know how these things go, word gets around.[object Object][object Object]So here I am, just trying to do my job, and suddenly I'm in the middle of some sort of t...
  DEFENDANT has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle a nationwide class action lawsuit, which accused the company of making telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The lawsuit, filed in 2015, alleged that the company made calls using a prerecorded message to cell phones, residential lines, and numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry to obtain new clients. The settlement includes cash payments of between $100 and $150 to eligible members of the class action, as well as covering class administration costs, plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and litigation costs up to $2,210,566. A $25,000 court-approved service award will also be given to the plaintiff. DEFENDANT will also implement policies and procedures to prevent future violations. Despite the settlement, DEFENDANT does not admit to any wrongdoing and continues to deny the allegations.	Unsolicited calls? They're a real nuisance. It seems my number made it onto a list somewhere, and now my phone won't stop ringing with offers I never asked for.
  DEFENDANT has agreed to a $8.5 million class action settlement over allegations that its stores used misleading price tags. The lawsuit alleged that the use of the phrase “Compare At” on price tags was deceptive, as it misled customers about the actual price of comparable items at other stores. Customers who purchased items from DEFENDANT's stores in California between July 17, 2011 and Dec. 6, 2017, can file a claim to receive either a merchandise store credit or cash from the settlement. DEFENDANT has also agreed to change pricing disclosures on its website and in its California stores to comply with the state's price comparison advertising regulations. The settlement was granted preliminary approval on Dec. 5, 2017, and class members have until April 9, 2018 to object or opt out.	Got a bargain at my favourite shop, but the "Compare At" tags sure had me thinking other places were pricier. Hmm, interesting marketing strategy!

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
  json

  1{ 2 "scale": 50.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim" 4}

cuad_qa

• Dataset: cuad_qa at 333b657
• Size: 11,180 training samples
• Columns: anchor and positive
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive
  type	string	string
  details	min: 33 tokens mean: 51.31 tokens max: 105 tokens	min: 3 tokens mean: 57.1 tokens max: 192 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive
  Highlight the parts (if any) of this contract related to "Document Name" that should be reviewed by a lawyer. Details: The name of the contract	DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT
  Highlight the parts (if any) of this contract related to "Parties" that should be reviewed by a lawyer. Details: The two or more parties who signed the contract	Distributor
  Highlight the parts (if any) of this contract related to "Parties" that should be reviewed by a lawyer. Details: The two or more parties who signed the contract	Electric City of Illinois L.L.C.

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
  json

  1{ 2 "scale": 50.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim" 4}

privacy_qa

• Dataset: privacy_qa at cd59571
• Size: 6,038 training samples
• Columns: anchor and positive
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive
  type	string	string
  details	min: 6 tokens mean: 11.54 tokens max: 30 tokens	min: 4 tokens mean: 30.25 tokens max: 143 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive
  do you share my location with other people	To use our Applications, you must have an account with a healthcare provider who uses Epic's software and your use of our Applications is also subject to your healthcare provider's privacy policy.
  are you selling my data	Interest Based Advertising Khan Academy does not display any targeted advertising on our Service.
  will the data collected from my usage of the app be sold to third parties?	Additionally, if you choose to participate in our member-to-member communications programs, other TripAdvisor members may contact you by using TripAdvisor as an intermediary; however, TripAdvisor will not share your email address with any other members nor display it any public manner.

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
  json

  1{ 2 "scale": 50.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim" 4}

legal_sum

• Dataset: legal_sum at 667db49
• Size: 7,773 training samples
• Columns: anchor and positive
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive
  type	string	string
  details	min: 192 tokens mean: 192.0 tokens max: 192 tokens	min: 63 tokens mean: 191.26 tokens max: 192 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive
  Appeal No. LXVI of 1949.[object Object]Appeal from the High Court of judicature, Bombay, in a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1022.[object Object]K.M. Munshi (N. P. Nathvani, with him), for the appel lant. ' M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India (H. J. Umrigar, with him), for the respondent. 1950.[object Object]May 26.[object Object]The judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN J.[object Object]This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in an income tax matter and it raises the question whether munici pal property tax and urban immoveable property tax payable under the relevant Bombay Acts are allowable deductions under section 9 (1) (iv) of the Indian Income tax Act.[object Object]The assessee company is an investment company deriving its income from properties in the city of Bombay.[object Object]For the assessment year 1940 41 the net income of the assessee under the head "property" was computed by the Income tax Officer in the sum of Rs. 6,21,764 after deducting from gross rents certain payments.[object Object]T...	The charge created in respect of municipal property tax by section 212 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, is an "annual charge not being a capital charge" within the mean ing of section 9 (1) (iv) of the Indian Income tax Act, 199.2, and the amount of such charge should therefore be deducted in computing the income from such property for the purposes of section 9 of the Indian Income tax Act.[object Object]The charge in respect of urban immoveable property tax created by the Bombay Finance Act, 1939 is similar in character and the amount of such charge should also be deducted.[object Object]The expression "capital charge" in s.9(1) (iv) means a charge created for a capital sum,that is to say, a charge created to. ' secure the discharge of a liability of a capi tal nature; and an "annual charge" means a charge to secure an annual liabili ty. 554[object Object]
  Civil Appeal No.94 of 1949.[object Object]107 834 Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judi cature at Patna in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 97 of 1946 (Mannohar Lall and Mukherji JJ.) dated 23rd Decem ber, 1947, confirming the judgment of the District Judge of Purulia in Appeal No. 159 of 1944.[object Object]S.P. Sinha (P. K. Bose, with him) for the appel lant.[object Object]N.C. Chatterjee and Panchanan Ghosh (Chandra Narayan Naik, with them) for the respondent. 1950.[object Object]December 1.[object Object]The Judgment of the Court was deliv ered by PATANJALI SASTRI J.[object Object]This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, for recovery of arrears of royalty and cess from the appellant and another alleged to be due under a compromise decree passed on the 6th March, 1923, in a previ ous suit between the predecessors in interest of the par ties.[object Object]The only plea which is material for the purpose of this appeal is that the compromise decree not having been registered was inadmissible in...	An agreement for a lease, which a lease is by the Indian declared to include, must be a document which effects an actual demise and operates as a lease.[object Object]It must create present and immediate interest in land.[object Object]Where a litigation between two persons A and B who claimed to be tenants under C was settled by a compromise decree the effect of which was to create a perpetual underlease between A and B which was to take effect only on condition that A paid Rs. 8,000 to C within a fixed period: Held, that such a contingent agreement was not "a lease" within el.[object Object](a) of section 17 (t) of the Indian , and even though it was covered by cl.[object Object](b) of the said sec tion it was exempt from registration under el.[object Object](vi) of subs.[object Object](2) of section 17.[object Object]Hemanta Kumari Debi vs Midnapur Zamindari Co. (I P.C.) relied on.[object Object]
  iminal Appeal No. 40 of 1951, 127 Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 1st June, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature in Assam (Thadani C.J. and Ram Labhaya J.,) in Criminal Reference No. I of 1951, arising out of Judgment and Order dated the 15th November, 1950, of the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Lakhimpur, in Case No. 1126C of 1950.[object Object]Jindra Lal for the appellant.[object Object]Nuruddin Ahmed for the respondent.[object Object]October 23.[object Object]The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J.[object Object]Rameshwar Bhartia, the appellant, is a shopkeeper in Assam.[object Object]He was prosecuted for storing paddy without a licence in excess of the quantity permitted by the Assam Food Grains Control Order, 1947.[object Object]He admitted storage and possession of 550 maunds of paddy, but pleaded that he did not know that any licence was necessary.[object Object]The 'Additional District Magistrate recorded a plea of guilty, but imposed him a fine of Rs. 50 only, as he considered his ignorance of the provisions of the Food Grains Con...	The question whether a Magistrate is "personally interested" in a ease within the meaning of section 556, Criminal Procedure Code, has essentially to be decided the facts of each case.[object Object]Where an officer as a District Magistrate exercising his powers under section 7(1) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, sanctioned the prosecution of a person for violation of sections 3 and 7 of the Assam Food Grains Control Order, 1947, and the same officer as Additional District Magistrate tried and convicted the accused, and it was contended that as the officer had given sanction for prosecution he was "personally interested" in the case within the meaning of section 656, Criminal Procedure Code, and the trial and conviction were therefore illegal: Held, that bymerely giving sanction for prosecution he did not become personally interested" in the case and the trial and conviction were not illegal.[object Object]In both cases of sanction and direction to prosecute, an application of the mind is n...

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
  json

  1{ 2 "scale": 50.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim" 4}

aus_legal_qa

• Dataset: aus_legal_qa at 0628f4a
• Size: 2,124 training samples
• Columns: anchor and positive
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive
  type	string	string
  details	min: 12 tokens mean: 38.68 tokens max: 106 tokens	min: 21 tokens mean: 111.75 tokens max: 192 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive
  In the case of Nasr v NRMA Insurance [2006] NSWSC 1018, why was the plaintiff's appeal lodged out of time?	In Nasr v NRMA Insurance [2006] NSWSC 1018, the plaintiff's appeal was lodged out of time because the summons was filed on 8 June 2006, seven months after the decision of the Local Court was made on 4 October 2005. No explanation was provided for this delay.
  In the case of R v NGUYEN [2001] NSWCCA 334, what was the relationship between the Appellant and Mr Nguyen, and what activities of Mr Nguyen did the Appellant testify about?	In the case of R v NGUYEN [2001] NSWCCA 334, the Appellant testified that Mr Nguyen was her cousin and that she had allowed him to live in her flat for about 4 or 5 days. She stated that she had heard that Mr Nguyen was selling heroin and that she had seen him hand over a small foil to a third person, an event that made her feel surprised, upset, and angry. Despite her protests, Mr Nguyen allegedly continued to sell heroin from the flat. The Appellant also mentioned seeing other customers in the flat and a friend of Mr Nguyen's cutting foil in the lounge-room. Despite her complaints to her boyfriend and an aunt, she took no further steps to prevent these activities, citing reasons such as their close familial relationship and her reluctance to involve the police.
  In the case of Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 237, what was the court's decision regarding the motion to restrain a firm from acting?	In the case of Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 237, the court decided to dismiss the motion to restrain a firm from acting. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a solicitor of their choice and it was not in the interest of justice to deprive the plaintiff of their choice of solicitor.

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:
  json

  1{ 2 "scale": 50.0, 3 "similarity_fct": "cos_sim" 4}

Training Hyperparameters

Non-Default Hyperparameters

• eval_strategy: steps
• per_device_train_batch_size: 64
• learning_rate: 1e-06
• num_train_epochs: 2
• warmup_ratio: 0.1
• fp16: True
• batch_sampler: no_duplicates

All Hyperparameters

Training Logs

Framework Versions

• Python: 3.10.12
• Sentence Transformers: 3.3.0
• Transformers: 4.45.2
• PyTorch: 2.5.1+cu124
• Accelerate: 1.1.0
• Datasets: 3.1.0
• Tokenizers: 0.20.3

Citation

BibTeX

Sentence Transformers

MultipleNegativesRankingLoss