Law Between Languages and Traditions (Énoncer L'Indicible: Le Droit Entre Langues Et Traditions) (French)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal biligualism highlights the meta-linguistic nature of law: norms exist in the world of ideas, and not only in their textual representation, and are only partially rendered by different linguistic efforts to express them. If law lies between different linguistic versions, does it also reside in the space between legal traditions? Bijuralism (that is, the simultaneous expression of a norm in two legal traditions) can lead to a form of dialog between traditions, beyond the juxtaposition of loosely equivalent versions of the same norm. This dialogical bijuralism rests on the possibility of a plural legal identity and culture for a single person. It also leads to a more radical hypothesis: that of a meta-traditional normativity, that is, of a set of legal ideas which exist outside of their particular manifestations in a given legal tradition.Le bilinguisme juridique revele le caractere meta-linguistique du droit : les normes existent dans le monde des idees, hors de leur representation dans une langue donnee, et ne sont rendues que partiellement et imparfaitement par les differentes tentatives de les exprimer. Si le droit existe entre les textes, peut-il aussi exister entre les traditions ? Le bijuridisme (c'est-a-dire l'expression simultanee d'une norme dans deux traditions juridiques) peut conduire au dialogue entre les traditions, au-dela de la mise en parallele de versions a peu pres equivalentes de la norme. Un tel bijuridisme dialogi-que s'appuie sur la possibilite d'identites juridiques plurielles pour une seule personne. Il mene aussi a l'hypothese d'une normativite meta-traditionnelle, c'est-a-dire un repertoire d'idees juridiques qui existent en dehors de leur manifestation particuliere dans une tradition donnee.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".