Bilingual higher education in the legal context : group rights, state policies and globalisation
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
Notes on Contributors Acknowledgments Introduction: 1. Legal education in bilingual contexts: A conceptual, historical and comparative perspective Xabier Arzoz Part I Legal Education in Multilingual States: 2. Bilingualism and legal education in Canada: The classical approach Andre Braen 3. Linguistic Law in Higher Education in Belgium: new trends for bilingual education, but which one? Sophie Weerts 4. The Swiss paradox: Monolingual higher education in a multicultural environment Nicole Schmitt 5. Implementing linguistic rights through legal education in Finnish and Swedish in Finland Markku Suksi Part II Legal Education through Minority Languages: 6.Basque-medium legal education in the Basque Country Xabier Arzoz 7. Bilingual higher education in Catalonia Eva Pons 8. Living on borrowed time: Bilingual law teaching in Galicia, or the urgent need to recover prestige Alba Nogueira 9. Bilingual legal scholarship in Wales: historical and contemporary perspectives Gwyn Parry 10. Legal education in Hungarian language in Transylvania: Between a glorious past and an uncertain future Gyula Fabian 11. Creating, studying and experimenting bilingual law in South Tyrol: Lost in interpretation? Elisabeth Alber and Francesco Palermo Part III The emergence of English as a language of legal education: 12. English-medium legal education in continental Europe: Maastricht University's European Law School - Experiences and challenges Nicole Kornet Part IV Conclusions: 13. Bilingual legal education in Europe and Canada Bethan Sarah Davies Index.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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