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
This paper addresses the issue of a systematic approach to the drafting of legislation, in the light of Swiss experience. Starting from a brief survey of inflationary tends in the production of Legislative material, the author brings out the mutually reinforcing interplay between these tends and a widening lack of consensus about the contents and enforceability of legislation. While such factors hardly favour systematic lawmaking, a number of institutional features in the Swiss federal legislative process help maintain the quality of legislative instruments — namely the very length of the process, the bicameralism, the plurality of official languages, and the subjection of laws to the referendum procedure. Further, the practice of Swiss Legislators shows concern for the preservation of systematic unity. Thus, the federal department of Justice has devised a set of Principles of legislative drafting, supplemented by a checklist that can be applied to any draft legislative instrument. In a number fields where lawmaking authority vests in the cantons rather than in the Confederation, federal authorities have drafted model laws in the hope of promoting uniformity between cantonal legislation. In.other fields, where law-making authority has been given to the Confederation, federal legislation has sometimes been limited to a basic law, containing broad provisious only leaving details to be filled in by each of the cantons. The technique of codification, by contrast, has not been resorted to since the major achievements in civil and criminal law during the first half of this century. Finally, Swiss legislative draftsmen, both federal and cantonal, have been concerned lately with the improvement of drafting and style, as is shown by the recent spread of guidelines, instructions and even laws on the subject.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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