Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the limitations on legal translation strategy by looking at the right of abode issue in Hong Kong—the very first case in which the role of interpretation was argued since the return of sovereignty to China in 1997. The different approaches to interpreting the mini-constitution, the Basic Law, by the Court of Final Appeal, the Hong Kong Government and the Central Authorities as well as public opinion on the issue will leave translators with no choice but to translate a text that carries terms with open interpretation as literally as possible so as not to affect the substance of the original text. This paper also discusses the strategy of translating a judgement made by a legal body. Legal bilingualism should enable the general public to understand the law to a greater extent than they previously did. A user-friendly approach to translation will accelerate the assimilation of the common law into the Chinese culture and language.
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 | 0.035 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".