THE LANGUAGE OF REGULATORY LEGAL ACTS: IS IT TIME TO SOUND THE ALARM?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: the article describes the experience of assessing the readability of regulatory legal acts by analyzing the complexity of syntactic constructions used in the texts. According to the subjective perception, normative texts become more complicated from year to year, which makes it difficult to interpret them and understand the legal meaning. Purpose: to test this hypothesis based on metrics and, if confirmed, to formulate recommendations for simplification of legal texts. For this, the authors studied the methods used in Russia and across the world to assess the complexity of official texts and to simplify them. Methods: having not found suitable tools for assessing the readability of syntactically overburdened texts of regulatory legal acts, the authors applied their own assessment methodology based on machine analysis of syntax indicators. The investigation was conducted in relation to specially prepared corpora of texts: 12 corpora of all federal laws effective on different dates and a corpus of 3,390 by-laws. The study also compared the syntactic complexity of regulatory legal acts and texts of other categories (fiction, articles in the media, etc.). Results: the study proves that the degree of syntactic complexity of legal texts is significantly higher than that of texts of other styles; moreover, it increases with time. For example, federal regulations being in effect at the end of 2021 are by 33% more complex than those in force in 1991. Conclusions: the modern language of regulatory legal acts is excessively complicated. As a rule, the same content can be presented in a simpler manner. The review of the literature showed that the growing complexity of legal texts is a vital issue to address not only in Russia. To overcome the existing negative practice, administrative measures are required, such as the preparation of recommendations for the texts of draft regulatory legal acts and the expansion of the subject of linguistic assessment that such texts undergo.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it