Étude linguistique contrastive du corpus canadien des arrêts de la cour suprême et du corpus européen des arrêts de la cour de justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche entreprise vise à présenter l'analyse contrastive de phénomènes phraséologiques, lexicologiques et syntaxiques inhérents à la langue de spécialité juridique à partir de deux corpus comparables, bilingues anglais et français : celui des arrêts de la Cour suprême du Canada et celui des arrêts de la Cour de justice de l'Union Européenne. Plus précisément, il s'agit d'étudier les régularités et surtout de mettre au jour les particularités observables en anglais juridique, entre les systèmes de droit des deux côtés de l'atlantique, la common law au Canada et le droit romano-germanique en Europe. Sur la base d'exemples concrets rassemblés par concordancier et comparés aux données lexicographiques sur papier et en ligne, nous tenterons de conforter l'hypothèse de l'existence de règles morphologiques et syntaxiques propres à la langue spécialisée du droit, particulièrement au Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".