Cadlaws – An English–French Parallel Corpus of Legally Equivalent Documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents Cadlaws, a new English–French corpus built from Canadian legal documents, and describes the corpus construction process and preliminary statistics obtained from it. The corpus contains over 16 million words in each language and includes unique features since it is composed of documents that are legally equivalent in both languages but not the result of a translation. The corpus is built upon enactments co-drafted by two jurists to ensure legal equality of each version and to reflect the concepts, terms and institutions of two legal traditions. In this article the corpus definition as a parallel corpus instead of a comparable one is also discussed. Cadlaws has been pre-processed for machine translation and baseline Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (bleu), a score for comparing a candidate translation of text to a gold-standard translation of a neural machine translation system. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest parallel corpus of texts which convey the same meaning in this language pair and is freely available for non-commercial use.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".