La pratique du droit en francais au Nouveau-Brunswick (The Practice of Law in French in New Brunswick)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Au Nouveau-Brunswick, jusqu’en 1969, la pratique du droit devant les tribunaux s’est effectuee presque exclusivement en anglais. L’article 14 de la Loi sur les langues officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick (1969) changeait la politique gouvernementale en ce qui concerne l’administration de la justice. Proclamee en 1972, cette disposition ouvrait la porte a l’usage de la langue francaise dans les procedures judiciaires. Neanmoins, son impact sur la pratique fut relativement mineur en l’absence d’autres mesures plus concretes.L’adoption des lois revisees en format bilingue a partir de 1974, l’ouverture d’une ecole de common law en francais en 1978 puis l’adoption de regles de procedure bilingues en 1982 ont contribue davantage a l’utilisation de la langue de la minorite devant les tribunaux. La simple declaration d’egalite de 1969, bien qu’importante, n’a pas substantiellement modifiee la culture d’une profession ayant opere d’une seule facon pendant des siecles. Aujourd’hui, dans l’ensemble de la province, la langue francaise parait avoir infiltree la pratique du droit dans une proportion d’environ 12 a 15 pour cent.Neanmoins, malgre les progres importants accomplis depuis 1969, la pratique du droit continue a se faire substantiellement en anglais au Nouveau-Brunswick, meme dans les regions a predominance francophone. De plus, bon nombre d’avocats continuent d’aviser leurs clients en ne considerant que la version anglaise des textes legislatifs, ignorant ou inhabiles a considerer la loi dans son ensemble. Un fosse reste donc encore a etre comble entre la declaration d’egalite de la Loi sur les langues officielles du Nouveau- Brunswick (1969) et la situation sur le terrain.English Abstract: In New Brunswick, until 1969, the practice of the law before tribunals was almost entirely in English. Section 14 of the Official Languages of New Brunswick Act (1969) changed the government’s policy with respect to the administration of justice. Proclaimed in 1972, that provision opened the door to the use of French within judicial proceedings. However, its impact on the practice remained relatively trivial without more concrete actions.The adoption of the revised statutes in bilingual format in 1974, the opening of a French common law school in 1978 and the enactment of bilingual rules of court in 1982 had more impact on the use of the language of the minority before tribunals. The mere declaration of equality of 1969, although important, did not substantially alter the culture of a profession pursued in a single way for centuries. Today, on a provincial scale, the French language seems to have infiltrated about 12 to 15 percent of the practice of law.However, despite important progress accomplished since 1969, the practice of law continues to be carried out substantially in English, even in the regions with a predominantly French speaking population. In addition, several lawyers continue to advise their clients on the sole English version of the legislation, ignoring or incapable to read the statute in its entirety. A gap therefore remains to be fulfilled between the declaration of equality in the Official Languages of New Brunswick Act (1969) and reality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".