The Value of Legal Terminology for the Romano-German Legal System Countries
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
The problems of terminology are relevant for any aspect of human life. In the field of lawmaking, the significance of this problem corresponds to the significance of laws in society. Thus, the primary aim of the article is to investigate the place of legal terminology in the countries of the continental system of law. To accomplish end, this survey attempts to substantiate that legal terminology in this legal system is of significant importance for the formation and application of legislation. To do so, a comparison is made with the construction of the legal system in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system. Based on the result, Russian law is classified as a continental legal family. At the same time, based on an analysis of the key areas of development of economic legislation, a tendency has been revealed for the penetration of Anglo-Saxon legal institutions into the Russian legal system. The conclusion is formulated on the need to ensure the unity of legal terminology in legal texts. This is of particular importance when borrowing foreign legal institutions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it