Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We have the pleasure of introducing this sixty-sixth volume of the American Journal of Comparative Law. This volume marks the fifth year of our tenure as Editors-in-Chief, as well as the fifth year that the Journal is hosted jointly at the Georgetown University Law Center and the McGill University Faculty of Law. This new volume is also the second one to be published by Oxford University Press. This change has resolved a number of issues, but, typical of a time of transition, has also brought an array of new questions. As Editors-in-Chief, we are grateful to be able to draw on our new partner’s expertise in the complicated art of disseminating scholarly work in today’s world. We hope that as a consequence of the transition, we (or at least our successors) will eventually be able to focus predominantly on the substantive aspects of editorship and on the pleasures of reading the excellent scholarship submitted to us from all over the world. The Journal continues to be in the very fortunate position to distill its content, through a highly selective peer-review process, from a consistently high number of sophisticated submissions. With regard to the scholarship published in the Journal, we are thus looking back at an exciting year. Given the constant stream of submissions, a special issue around the work of Professor Pierre Legrand was published as a supplement, in addition to the four regular ones, to avoid slowing down the regular publication process. As in the past years, we have tried to remain faithful to the traditions that established the reputation of the Journal while also giving room to marginalized voices and new types of comparative scholarship. For 2018, we look forward to another volume that spans the entire bandwidth of the very best comparative law scholarship has to offer these days. As we start the new year, we wish to express our gratitude for the work done by the members of the Executive Editorial Board and by our Book Review Editors, Professors Richard Albert and Paul Dubinsky. In addition, our Articles Editor, Amber Lynch, of the McGill University Faculty of Law, deserves our profound gratitude for her wonderful work. A special thank you also to Claudia Hasbun, of the Georgetown University Law Center, who provided invaluable help for the 2017 special issue.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle