MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883207131

CONTRIBUTION D’UN JURILINGUISTE À LA DISTINCTION ENTRE PRÉJUDICE ET DOMMAGE

2017· article· fr· W2883207131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean-Claude Gémar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
Topiclinguistics and terminology studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatorMistakeDamagesLawMeaning (existential)Political scienceFrenchDoctrineCivil codePrejudice (legal term)Order (exchange)Civil law (Civil law)Law and economicsLegislationPhilosophySociologyHumanitiesPublic lawBusinessEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Law contains very few synonymous and interchangeable terms or expressions, such as the French civil law terms “dommages” and “dommages et interets”, both meaning “damages”. As with any specialized language, the majority oflegal terms are monosemic, and synonymy is rare. Many lawyers mistake the key French civil liability terms dommage and prejudice as being synonymous.  This causes a sometimes erratic use of the words in doctrine, jurisprudenceand, above all, by the legislator. Are they synonymous to the point of being interchangeable in any situation? Like most Francophone civil lawyers, the Quebec legislator seems to think so, contrary to the old order established sincethe Napoleonic Code. What does a jurilinguist have to say about it?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0130.023
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topiclinguistics and terminology studiesFrench-language works237,207