Bilinguisme legislatif : regard sur l’interpretation et la redaction des lois bilingues au Canada (Statutory Bilingualism: Examining Statutory Interpretation and Drafting Bilingual Laws in Canada)
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
French Abstract: Le Canada est une nation ou l’ordre de gouvernement federal, ainsi que certains ordres de gouvernement provinciaux et territoriaux, sont assujettis a des obligations en matiere de bilinguisme legislatif. Ces obligations ont d’importantes consequences pratiques sur l’interpretation des lois bilingues et sur la maniere dont elles sont redigees. L’existence de deux versions linguistiques d’un meme texte de loi force en effet ceux qui l’interpretent a reconnaitre que les mots d’un texte legislatif n’incarnent pas le droit en eux-memes, mais servent simplement de base pour en inferer le sens. Les regles d’interpretation des lois bilingues elaborees par les tribunaux au fil du temps exemplifient cette proposition. Nous passerons en revue ces regles et aborderons la question du scepticisme auquel elles se sont heurtees, en raison de la maniere dont les lois bilingues ont longtemps ete redigees. Nous nous pencherons ensuite sur les methodes de redaction des lois bilingues, sur leur reforme et sur le debat de longue date qui oppose la traduction a la coredaction.English Abstract: Canada is a nation where the federal government, as well as certain provincial and territorial governments, is subject to obligations regarding bilingual legislation. These obligations have important practical implications for the interpretation and drafting of bilingual laws. The existence of two linguistic versions of a same text of law forces those who interpret it to recognise that the words of one version do not necessarily explain the law itself, but rather serve as a tool to infer the meaning of the law. The rules of interpretation of bilingual legislation developed by the courts over the years exemplify this proposition. We will review these rules and address the questions of skepticism which have arisen as a result of drafting issues. We will then look at the process of drafting bilingual legislation, reforming this process and the longstanding debate between translation and co-drafting.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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