Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper inderlines in a cursory way some questions of interpretation that seem to arise from Quebec's new Charter of the French Language. The Charter breaks new ground in legal terminology. Some of the new terms and phrases introduced raise definitional problems, notably the concept of a "business undertaking". The task of specifying the meaning of words and phrases used in the Charter has been left to the Cabinet, through an usually wide delegation of regulation-making power. However, the reconstructed French Language Board ( Office de la langue française ) has also been granted significant regulation-making authority, which may in some cases overlap with that of the Cabinet. The nature and extent of rights and obligations that seem to arise under the Charter may be difficult to ascertain. In particular, the effect or provisions as to the language of standard form contracts, and the manner of enforcing them, seem fraught with uncertainty. While the Charter obviously confirm the principles underlying the previous Official Language Act of 1974 , it achieves greater clarity and consistency in stating those policies. In some respects, it allows for more flexibility than the earlier Act. The enforcement provisions of the Charter place greater emphasis on coercive action as regards the language of business. The Charter also breaks new ground by introducing a form of joint management of language conditions at work. In order to allow innovations to settle down, it is suggested that uncertainties be resolved by accumulated experience rather than through over-hasty amending legislation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".