Máirtín Mac Aodha (ed.). 2014.<i>Legal Lexicography. A Comparative Perspective.</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal Lexicography. A Comparative Perspective is one of few books devoted to this, as the blurb maintains, ‘most neglected aspect of the discipline of jurilinguistics’ and an attempt to fill the gap in modern lexicographic research. It presents contributions by experts in comparative law, legal history, terminology, terminography, translation and linguistics. The volume is directed at both scholars and practitioners, representing various perspectives: anachronic and diachronic, mono- and bilingual, and from common and civil law traditions in order to reflect current academic thinking (p. 3). The book consists of fifteen chapters by various authors, usually with either legal or linguistic background, who represent ten jurisdictions. Three chapters are written in French and include English language introductions which summarise the contents. The volume also contains a list of figures, a list of tables, acknowledgements, notes on contributors, a foreword by Lionel Smith from the Faculty of Law at McGill University, and an introduction by the editor of the volume, Máirtín Mac Aodha, a lawyer-linguist at the Council of the European Union and a researcher at the Université de Strasbourg. Two indices — for English and for French chapters, respectively, close the volume. Each chapter has its own bibliography.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".