De la traduction (juridique) à la jurilinguistique. Fonctions proactives du traductologue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plus ancienne que ce que l’on pense, la jurilinguistique, révélée par la traduction, s’est développée comme discipline dans le dernier tiers du XX e siècle. Le Canada, pour des raisons tenant à son histoire, ses langues et ses traditions juridiques, a joué un rôle de pionnier dans cette évolution. Répandue dans le monde entier, la jurilinguistique n’est pas le monopole des régimes de common law. Née sous la pression des besoins de communication et de diffusion de l’Etat moderne, puis de la société civile, elle transcende les frontières des langues et les barrières des traditions juridiques. Un corps de doctrine se constitue progressivement et le savoir-faire des jurilinguistes s’exporte. Ils contribuent à édifier un savoir d’un genre nouveau caractérisant une discipline à la croisée du droit et de la linguistique, aux fonctions liées à une pratique, à sa transmission et à son évolution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".