<i>Jus Commune</i> and Common Languauge: Insights on the Judicial Construction of Linguistic Law in Quebec Through the Prism of <i>Jus Commune</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The jus commune (droit commun) is the intellectual canvas upon which any rule of law is built upon within a given society, that must be integrated in any interpretation or construction process in any field of law, even constitutional law. As the jus commune bears a series of structural values, one ponders as to the correct construction of linguistic law to be held in that regard within a minority society entrenched inside a greater federal superstructure, where linguistic preservation is a collective existential matter. The author submits that the Supreme Court of Canada may have neglected to consider this important factor in Quebec when striking down large sections of the Charter of the French Language pertaining to the official language of law and judicial decisions in the 1979 Blaikie case, in which it imposed official constitutional bilingualism in matters of legislation and judicial decisions to the enclaved French-speaking province. Perhaps the appropriateness of this decision should be revisited.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 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".