Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of this paper is to suggest means whereby the body of statute law could be rearranged into a systematic whole. The concept of a system of statutes is first defined and contrasted with the concept of codification. Systematization is presented as involving two stages. First, a classification grid is obtained by grouping statutes under a number of broad headings according to their subject-matter. Second, within each group the various statutory provisions are ranked and possibly rearranged according to the scope of their application within the field covered by the group of statutes as a whole. While statutes retain individual existence, logical links between them are made more explicit. The concept is then applied experimentally to a group of 23 Québec statutes dealing with the provincial Cabinet and the organization of government departments. Proposals are thus made for a new Government Organization Act and new statutes setting up each of the departments. The paper then considers extending the process of systematization to a larger group including all statutes setting up agencies of the Québec government (administrative tribunals, regulatory boards, Crown corporations, etc.). This, it is suggested, could lead to the adoption by stages of a Code of Government Organization. Finally, the paper examines the requirements of the systematization of statutes as to legislative draftsmanship, legislative policy, and the legislative process. It argues for the need for a new agency with responsibility to advise the government on draft legislation and to carry out the systematization of groups of statutes on request from the National Assembly.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".