Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article cherche à stimuler les recherches en histoire du droit qui s'alimentent dans les archives judiciaires. L'auteure se penche brièvement sur diverses explications de la rareté du recours aux archives judiciaires dans le passé, en examinant les approches des chercheurs susceptibles d'utiliser ces sources. Ensuite, elle brosse un tableau de la nature et de la structure des archives judiciaires, soulignant les caractéristiques et les limites des séries principales produites par les tribunaux. Suit une description de la situation actuelle des archives judiciaires au Québec qui fait état notamment des recommandations du Comité interministériel sur les archives judiciaires et des conséquences de leur mise en oeuvre. Enfin, l'auteure termine en suggérant quelques pistes de recherche et en affirmant le besoin d'asseoir solidement l'histoire du droit sur une compréhension de l'administration de la justice, telle qu'elle est révélée par la production documentaire des tribunaux.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".