MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089023921 · doi:10.7202/1026132ar

Risks and Uncertainties of Scientific Innovations in French Liability Law: Between Radical Departure and Continuity

2014· article· en· W2089023921 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Étienne Vergès

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Law Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityLegal liabilityAmbivalencePhenomenonLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceSociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author investigates changes in French liability law that have occurred since the end of the nineteenth century as a result of innovation in science and technology and, in particular, of the risks and uncertainties attached to this phenomenon. This text explores the extent to which scientific and technological innovation has influenced legal innovation in the field of civil liability. The author seeks to address whether science- and technology-based legal developments resulted in radical departures from the general principles of civil liability, or rather take place within a continued evolution of the law. This study demonstrates that the impact of scientific and technological innovation on liability is ambivalent; changes in the French law of civil liability have constituted both a radical departure and a continuity of orthodox practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Law JournalSame topicLegal and Social PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207