Colonial Lag and Surinamese Legal Dutch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal language, the language of law, has its own characteristics which are not only expressed in different languages of different legal systems but also in different languages in the same legal system (e.g. French and English in the Canada). In the Netherlands and Suriname, the official language and the legal language is Dutch. However, there are differences in the Dutch used in these countries. The legal systems of the Netherlands and Suriname have gone their own way since 1975. This is expected to show in the Legal Dutch of both countries. This research investigates how the Legal Dutch of Suriname and the Netherlands, respectively, have developed. The aim of this study is to compare the legal language of these two legal systems and detect differences in the usage of Dutch legal language. As claimed by Marckwardt in 1958, (post)colonial varieties of a language change less than the variety spoken in the (former) mother country. This theory is referred to as the ‘colonial lag’. This research will be limited to criminal law. Within this area of law, legal texts will be compared. The expected outcome is that Surinamese Legal Dutch will be more conservative than the Legal Dutch in the Netherlands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".