Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We have the pleasure of introducing this sixty-fifth volume of the American Journal of Comparative Law. This volume marks the fourth year of our tenure as Editors-in-Chief, as well as the fourth 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 first one to be published by Oxford University Press. At the 2015 Annual Meeting in Dallas, after careful deliberation and based on thorough preparatory work, the plenary of American Society of Comparative Law decided to henceforth partner with a professional publisher in the production of the Journal. In spring 2016, an agreement between the Society and Oxford University Press was signed. This marks a momentous change: Throughout its long tradition, the American Journal of Comparative Law has particularly valued its model of independent publishing. As the current Editors-in-Chief, however, we strongly believe that in today’s complex and globally connected publishing environment, the best way to honor this longstanding commitment to excellence and to prepare the Journal for the future is by collaborating with an experienced and professional partner. We are grateful to those many members of the American Society of Comparative Law who have invested time and effort into the process that led to this partnership; gratitude is owed, in particular, to Gary Bell, Richard Kay, Matthias Reimann, and John Reitz, who, as members of the ad-hoc committees tasked with stewarding this endeavor, bore the brunt of the work involved and invested countless hours in the process of evaluating the pros and cons of this change in general, and, after a decision had been made in Dallas, diligently negotiated the contractual agreement with OUP. For us as Editors-in-Chief, the signing of the publishing agreement marked just the beginning of the true work of transition, but we are confident that the investment made now will pay off in the future and help to secure the Journal’s continued success in today’s—and tomorrow’s—publishing world. As was the case last year, the number of articles submitted from all over the world has remained very high. And as in the past four years, we have tried to remain faithful to the traditions that established the reputation of the Journal and have also endeavored to further increase the diversity of the published contributions. While quality in legal publications is difficult to express in numerical values, the results of the annual Journal Citation Report (JCR) from Thomson Reuters attest to the fact that the AJCL continues to publish relevant scholarship and has in fact even significantly increased its impact. The AJCL is now ranked twenty-seventh of the 147 journals in the law category of the report, having risen thirty-six places over the course of just two years. As we start the year 2017, we wish to express our gratitude for the work done by the members by the Executive Editorial Board and by our Book Review Editors, Professors Richard Albert and Paul Dubinsky. In addition, our Articles Editor, Jennifer Anderson, of the McGill University Faculty of Law, deserves a special “thank you” for the extraordinary quality of her work. As she will be leaving the Journal this year, we want to express to her our deepest gratitude for all the work she has done, and we also wish her the best for her professional career.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,089 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,117 | 0,101 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».