Le classicisme et le progressisme dans la pensée juridique aux États-Unis selon l'analyse historique de Morton J. Horwitz
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans son dernier ouvrage, The Transformation of American Law, 1870-1960 : The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy, Morton J. Horwitz, professeur à la Harvard Law School et membre fondateur de l'analyse critique du droit, propose une analyse originale et provocante de l'histoire de la pensée juridique aux États-Unis. Le classicisme juridique de la fin du XIXe siècle reposait sur une vision apolitique et neutre d'un système juridique conçu comme une science autonome des valeurs morales et politiques de la société. Deux vagues de critique progressiste, la théorie sociologique du droit et le réalisme juridique, dénoncèrent les procédés de dissimulation et de légitimation de la construction juridique classiciste. Ces deux écoles de pensée exerceront une influence déterminante sur la théorie du droit aux Etats-Unis dont deux mouvements contemporains, l'analyse économique du droit et l'analyse critique du droit, disent en être les héritiers légitimes. L'auteure trace le portrait de la thèse de Horwitz à partir de thèmes d'intérêt pour les juristes du Québec.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".