Langue du droit et doctrine : la linguistique juridique au service de l’accessibilité internationalisée des contributions doctrinales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le contexte croissant d’internationalisation et d’informatisation, la contribution doctrinale, nécessaire à la compréhension d’un droit et à la pratique du droit comparé, devient accessible sans contrainte temporelle ou géographique si ce n’est linguistique. Il s’agit donc de comprendre comment bien écrire afin de faciliter l’interprétation et la traduction de notre texte. Ainsi, notre objet d’étude est de mettre en évidence les moyens pour rendre plus accessible la production doctrinale, afin que les acteurs d’autres systèmes juridiques puissent la trouver, la comprendre, s’y référer justement, voire s’en inspirer dans l’élaboration ou encore la révision de leur propre système juridique. Autrement dit, cet article aborde les problèmes de la communication dus à la polysémie ainsi qu’à la technicité des termes juridiques. La linguistique juridique, attentive à la fois au vocabulaire et au discours, devient alors un outil de plus en plus utile au juriste soucieux de l’accessibilité internationalisée de sa contribution doctrinale.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".