BERTSIO LINGUISTIKO KONTRAJARRIAK EUSKAL AUTONOMIA ERKIDEGOKO LEGEETAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
«¿Y si la ley en castellano dice lo contrario?». Esta es la pregunta que surge cuando, después de analizar la ley en euskera, se procede a examinar el texto de esa misma ley en castellano, y encontramos divergencias entre ellas. Aunque esta situación no se dé con mucha frecuencia, hay veces que existen divergencias lingüísticas entre los textos legales oficiales. Puede estar motivado, bien porque el euskera y el castellano sean lenguas sin parentesco, hecho que dificulta la equivalencia entre ambos textos, o bien porque a veces existen fallos de traducción. En estos casos, se ponen en evidencia los límites de la cooficialidad del euskera, ya que puede estar en juego la seguridad jurídica en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco. El objeto de este estudio es investigar cómo se debe actuar cuando las versiones en euskera y en castellano de una misma ley no son equivalentes. Para ello, además de profundizar en la doctrina del Tribunal Constitucional, también ha sido objeto de estudio la trayectoria que la Jurilingüística ha realizado en la interpretación de textos legales multilingües, tanto en el Derecho Internacional, como en el Derecho de la Unión Europea, así como en los sistemas bilingües de países como Canadá o Bélgica. «Eta legeak gaztelaniaz kontrakoa badio?». Horixe bera da, hain zuzen ere, legea euskaraz aztertu, gaztelaniazko testua irakurri, eta biak bat ez datozela ohartzean sortzen den galdera. Sarritan gertatzen ez bada ere, batzuetan bertsio linguistiko kontrajarriak azaltzen dira lege-testu ofizialetan, izan euskara eta gaztelania linguistikoki urrun egoteak zaildu egiten duelako bi testuen arteko baliokidetasuna, izan, besterik gabe, zenbaitetan itzulpen-akatsak daudelako. Eta horrelako kasuetan, euskararen benetako koofizialtasunaren mugak agerian jartzen dira, segurtasun juridikoa jokoan egon daitekeelako Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoan. Bada, ikerlan honen helburua da aztertzea nola jardun behar den lege bereko euskarazko eta gaztelaniazko bertsioak bat ez datozenean. Horretarako, Konstituzio Auzitegiaren doktrinan sakontzeaz gain, aztergai izan da Jurilinguistikaren alorrak lege-testu eleanitzen interpretazioan egin duen ibilbidea, bai Nazioarteko Zuzenbidean, bai Europar Batasuneko Zuzenbidean, baita Kanada edo Belgika bezalako sistema elebidunetan ere. «What if the Spanish version of the act says the contrary?». That is the question that arises when, after reading the act in Basque language, the Spanish text is examined, and there are some divergences. Although it does not happen very often, there are sometimes problems of linguistic divergences between official legal texts. This may be motivated by the difficulty of drafting equivalent versions, given the linguistic difference between Basque and Spanish, or even by occasional errors in translation. In such cases, the limits of the coofficiality status of Basque are revealed, as legal certainty can be at risk in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country. The purpose of the present study is to research how to proceed when the Basque and Spanish versions of the same act are not equivalent. This involves carrying out an in-depth study of the case-law of the Spanish Constitutional Court, as well as the experience of Jurilinguistics in interpretation of multilingual legislative texts in International Law, European Union Law, and in bilingual systems such as Canada or Belgium.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".