Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue is the first of two volumes of Comparative Legilinguistics devoted to legal translation.They include research presented at the 2018 Transius International Conference on Legal and Institutional Translation at the University of Geneva's Faculty of Translation and Interpreting.The four articles gathered in this first volume cover a selection of key aspects of legal translation, with an emphasis on specialized methodology and competence, including comparative legal analysis for translation, the impact of legal thematic knowledge on translators' performance, and the differences between machine translation output and human translation in this field.These studies refer to a wide variety of language combinations (French-English, English-French, Norwegian-German, English-Hungarian and Italian-German), and exemplify common methodological challenges in the quest for quality in legal translation.The first two articles address comparative law for translation.In line with the multilingual nature of the Transius Conference and this journal, they are written in two different languages, French and German, respectively.In the first paper, "L'analyse jurilinguistique en traduction, exercice de droit comparé.Traduire la lettre ou «l'esprit des lois»?Le cas du Code Napoléon", Jean-Claude GÉMAR (Universities of Montreal and Geneva) describes his approach to examining the spirit and the letter of the laws through comparative legal linguistic analysis for translation.He provides insightful examples of transfer strategies in the translations of several civil codes derived from the Napoleonic Code, e.g.early translations of this Code into English for informative purposes, the source-oriented rendering of Quebec's Civil Code for the English-speaking minority of this Canadian province, and the more recent translation of the Civil Code of Louisiana into French characterized by the double influence of continental and common law.Ingrid SIMONNAES (Norwegian School of Economics, NHH) also highlights the pivotal role of comparative law
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".