L'interaction des techniques de rédaction et des techniques d'interprétation des lois
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
That there is an interaction effect between legislative drafting techniques and judicial methods for the interpretation of statutes is beyond question. But what really lies behind that interaction is a sort of tug of war between two opponents, legislator and judge, each obsessed with the other and each driven by the other to dig in his heels and resist at all costs, regardless of the caricature they may make of their respective roles. The presumed hostility of judges to the labours of the legislator leads to petty drafting techniques which, in turn, leave judges with a feeling of the legislator's hostility towards them, thus resulting in interpretation techniques which, if not altogether negative, clearly indicate the judges' distrust of the legislator. This vicious circle must be broken and a return made to broader conceptions of legal interpretation. The judges, no doubt, have their part to play in the task of reconciliation. But no real progress can be made if the legislator does not first set the proper example in taking the honourable and calculated risk of expressing himself in simple and open language. The recent change in drafting techniques, at least in certain classes of statutes, is an encouraging sign in that regard.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it