MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097028572

1 Legal Bilingual and Bisystemic Dictionary of Property in Canada

2016· article· en· W7097028572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
Topiclinguistics and terminology studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProperty (philosophy)Supreme courtLegislatureLegal translationConsistency (knowledge bases)Civil codeField (mathematics)LexisPrivate property
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Legal Dictionary of Property in Canada (LDPC) is an interpretative bilingual and bisystemic encoding and decoding tool for Canadian legal texts and notably, for legislative and judicial texts dealing with federal law. It was created to address this specific need. By bilingual we mean both of Canada’s official languages, French and English; by bisystemic we refer to the legal systems in private law matters, Civil Law and Common Law, which coexist within the Canadian federal law. The dictionary’s theme is property, and the observation of this phenomenon was conducted through the use of an aligned and bilingual corpus of judicial decisions, mostly originating from the Supreme Court of Canada and, to a lesser extent, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Its definitions form a set of necessary and sufficient conditions whose specific consistency constitutes an ontology. As a working hypothesis, its validity is therefore verified according to whether the coverage of the observed field is ∗ Editor and Co-Author of the Legal Dictionary of Property in Canada (LDPC) with Anne Des Ormeaux. I would like to offer my thanks and gratitude to Isabelle Palad for the complete revision and layout formatting of this paper, as well as its translation and adaptation into English. Many thanks to Anne Des

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topiclinguistics and terminology studiesFrench-language works237,207