Book Review: Title of Book: Paul Salembier, Legal and Legislative Drafting, (Ontario, LexisNexis Canada, 2009), 549 pp, hardcover].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his book, "Legal and Legislative Drafting", Paul Salembier takes on the daunting task of explaining the "principles and practices behind the drafting of legal documents that confer powers and establish rights and impose liabilities, where precision and clarity is of the utmost importance".The purpose of this book review to assess for potential readers whether Salembier has met his lofty goal.The book is laid out in a logical fashion allowing the reader to build on concepts as the reader works through the book.In addition, the concepts in the book are well identified in such a manner that it can serve as an excellent resource tool.In particular this review examines the drafting issues and drafting techniques that are covered in the 13 chapters of the book in a logical and complete fashion.Topics covered include the essence of drafting, the legislative sentence, reducing complexity, paragraphing and plain language drafting, to name a few.With respect to each topic covered, Salembier embarks on a detailed examination of the drafting problems and provides solid guidance on how to improve the clarity of the text.Salembier also provides critical insight into the role of the drafter as well how to establish an efficient drafting office.In the end of the analysis, the review concludes that Salembier has met his goal with this text.This book draws from examples around the world and will be of great assistance not just for legislative drafters, but also for anyone who is called upon to draft complex legal documents.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".