Le Barreau du Nouveau-Brunswick et la reglementation du francais dans la profession juridique (The Law Society of New Brunswick and the Regulation of French in the Legal Profession)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Dans ce texte, l’auteur s’attarde aux obligations linguistiques des ordres professionnels et, plus particulierement, sur celles du Barreau du Nouveau- Brunswick, barreau de la seule province officiellement bilingue au Canada. Dans un premier temps, le texte examine la nature et le role des ordres professionnels afin de mieux comprendre leur importance et leur raison d’etre. Ensuite, il discute plus specifiquement des obligations linguistiques du Barreau du Nouveau- Brunswick, decoulant de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes, de la Loi sur les langues officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick et de la Loi de 1996 sur le Barreau de cette province.English Abstract: In this paper, the author considers the language obligations of professional governing bodies, and in particular the obligations of the Law Society of New Brunswick, in the only officially bilingual province of Canada. The paper first examines the nature and role of professional governing bodies, in order to better understand their importance and their purpose. It then discusses, more specifically, the language obligations of the Law Society of New Brunswick under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Languages Act of New Brunswick and the province’s Law Society Act, 1996.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".