Datasets:
uid stringclasses 10
values | dataset_id stringclasses 1
value | jurisdiction stringclasses 3
values | court_level stringclasses 8
values | year int64 2.02k 2.02k | area_of_law stringclasses 4
values | pillar stringclasses 1
value | series stringclasses 1
value | input_demand_level stringclasses 4
values | input_capacity_level stringclasses 8
values | input_wait_time stringclasses 7
values | input_pro_se_rate stringclasses 7
values | input_case_outcomes stringclasses 9
values | input_policy_signal stringclasses 8
values | question stringclasses 1
value | ground_truth_label stringclasses 2
values | ground_truth_rationale stringclasses 10
values | outcome_signal stringclasses 6
values | early_window_months int64 0 14 | source_citation stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA-TR-001 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | Magistrates | 2,022 | Criminal | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | High demand | Low capacity | 6 week wait | Pro se rising | Adjournments frequent | Funding cuts | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Demand exceeds capacity causing delay and pro se surge. | access_risk | 9 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-002 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | Crown Court | 2,020 | Criminal | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | Moderate demand | Adequate capacity | Short wait | Stable representation | Trials proceed normally | Stable funding | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Capacity matches demand. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-003 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | US | State Court | 2,019 | Criminal | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | High demand | Understaffed public defenders | Long delays | High pro se | Plea pressure rising | Budget cuts | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Understaffing and delay signal collapse risk. | fairness_risk | 8 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-004 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | EU | Trial | 2,021 | Civil | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | Moderate demand | Adequate aid clinics | Low wait | Low pro se | Cases proceed | Stable policy | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Supply meets demand. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-005 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | Family Court | 2,023 | Family | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | High demand | Reduced aid | Delays months | Self-representation rising | Case quality drops | Policy reform pending | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Demand far exceeds representation capacity. | access_risk | 12 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-006 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,021 | Immigration | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | High demand | Limited aid | Backlog growing | High pro se | Removal orders rise | No funding change | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Backlog and pro se spike indicate mismatch. | systemic_risk | 10 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-007 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | Civil Court | 2,020 | Civil | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | Low demand | Adequate capacity | Short wait | Low pro se | Stable outcomes | Stable funding | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | System balanced. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-008 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | EU | Trial | 2,022 | Criminal | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | Rising demand | Flat capacity | Moderate delays | Pro se increasing | Adjournments rising | Funding debate | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Demand rising without capacity growth. | risk_growth | 7 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-009 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | US | State Court | 2,018 | Family | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | Moderate demand | Adequate capacity | Low wait | Low pro se | Stable outcomes | Stable funding | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Demand and capacity aligned. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
LA-TR-010 | legal-aid-demand-capacity-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | Tribunal | 2,023 | Immigration | systemic_legal_coherence | 4B | High demand | Severely limited capacity | Long delays | Pro se dominant | Outcome variance high | Crisis reported | Is system demand-capacity relationship coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Severe mismatch between demand and capacity. | collapse_risk | 14 | Synthetic |
What this dataset is
You receive demand level capacity level wait time pro se rate outcome signals
You decide
Is demand and capacity still aligned
Answer
coherent or incoherent
Why this matters
When demand exceeds capacity representation collapses fairness risk rises
This dataset tracks early warning signals of systemic legal access failure.
- Downloads last month
- 7