Bibliographic record
Abstract
País bilíngue, fundamental no campo dos Estudos da Tradução por suas pesquisas em Terminologia e em Tradução jurídica, o Canadá promoveu e promove inúmeras iniciativas públicas, através de seu Bureau de Traduction, dentre outros organismos, para responder às diversas necessidades nacionais internas. O presente trabalho apresentará um acórdão da Corte Suprema da Nova-Escócia, província do Canadá, conhecido na jurisprudência canadense como o Acórdão Tran (1994), importante documento que estabeleceu pela primeira vez critérios para a fundamentação da "boa interpretação" no meio judicial. Tal decisão da Corte canadense foi incorporada ao Guia para Intérpretes Judiciários, do Ministério da Justiça do Quebec - Direção Geral dos Serviços de Justiça e dos Registros (janeiro de 2001, com edição revista em 2008), traduzido e adaptado por Pierrette Richard, Intérprete Judiciária no Palácio de Justiça de Montreal, do Freelance Court Interpreter's (1995), produzido pelo Serviço de Interpretação Judiciária do Ministério do Procurador Geral de Ontario.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".