La intertextualidad en el derecho y en la lingüística. La intertextualidad entre los documentos jurídicos de una cadena. Un análisis para la traducción
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le traducteur juridique de documents privés s’intéresse au contexte documentaire du document d’origine et, plus notamment, aux renvois implicites ou explicites que celui-ci fait à d’autres documents, de telle façon qu’une chaîne de documents est créée dont l’un des documents est central ou de base par rapport aux autres qui sont subordonnés. Cet article analyse les chaînes de documents associés entre eux appartenant à la même circonstance d’émission prévue par le système juridique qui établit les conditions documentaires requises pour la validité du negotium. L’exercice que l’on propose consiste à reconnaître les conditions de validité du negotium requises dans le document de base qui est associé aux documents subordonnées en tant que guide du traducteur dans sa lecture afin qu’il découvre graduellement les éléments du negotium dans le texte, soient explicites ou implicites.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".