Some Remarks on Understanding the Concept of propria verborum significatio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le sens des mots: quel probleme pour une saine communication! A ce propos, le droit canonique repete depuis longtemps: les lois ecclesiastiques doivent etre comprises selon le sens propre des mots (c. 17). Apparemment, cela parait simple, mais l'A. s'attaque a ce probleme. Dans notre droit existe une tradition concernant le sens propre, celui qui est fixe par l'usage commun et non par l'arbitraire: il peut etre naturel ou etymologique, vulgaire ou usuel, enfin, juridique ou civil, tout cela en tenant compte du texte et du contexte de la loi. Que dit a ce sujet la philosophie du langage? L'A. fait une breve incursion dans ce domaine, pour constater que les mots sont attaches non seulement a une description definie ou a un groupe de descriptions, mais que celle-ci varie selon le sens de l'objet auquel le mot se refere; d'ou l'importance de l'objet de reference, du contexte ou il se trouve et du choix a faire. La linguistique et la semantique parlent aussi du sens propre des mots. Dans une troisieme section, l'A. revient sur le probleme du contexte et du sens varie que celui-ci peut donner aux mots et il souleve le probleme des criteres a etablir pour le choix de ce contexte, tant au point de vue de la doctrine que de la jurisprudence. Une sorte de culture juridique a developper, en somme.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".