MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080193419 · doi:10.7202/015928ar

La Chine à la croisée des traditions juridiques

2007· article· fr· W2080193419 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hélène Piquet

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitique et Sociétés · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les réformes juridiques chinoises entamées en 1978 suscitent plusieurs questions. Les juristes chinois, en effet, sont autorisés à recourir aux transferts de droit afin d’élaborer la législation et la réglementation nécessaires aux réformes. Dans ce contexte, comment les juristes chinois abordent-ils le recours à des traditions juridiques étrangères ? Quelle place occupent, dans les réformes juridiques chinoises, la tradition juridique romano-germanique (ou de droit civil) et celle de common law ? Quelles sont, le cas échéant, les sources de difficultés dans les rapports entre les juristes chinois et occidentaux ? Telles sont les questions traitées dans cet article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitique et SociétésSame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207