MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094616524 · doi:10.3917/riej.073.0037

Forme et légitimité de la justice – Regard sur le rôle de l'architecture et des rituels judiciaires

2015· article· fr· W2094616524 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue interdisciplinaire d études juridiques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedieval and Early Modern Justice
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalResearch Unit on Children's Psychosocial MaladjustmentMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEconomic JusticeAdministration of justicePolitical scienceEthnologySociologyPasserArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La justice peut-elle se passer de mise en scène ? La forme architecturale ou rituelle que prend l’administration de la justice n’est pas étrangère à l’accomplissement de ses fonctions. Le rapport entre le pouvoir et ses symboles est très directement palpable au sein des cours de justice. Pourtant, la forme particulière des édifices et des rituels de justice évolue, plus souvent qu’autrement au gré des contingences, tantôt pour des raisons techniques, tantôt pour des raisons socio-politiques, et parfois, parfois seulement, pour des raisons d’équité ou de justice. En retraçant les grands moments de l’histoire de l’architecture des tribunaux judiciaires, puis en s’attachant à identifier les fonctions des rituels judiciaires, les auteurs cherchent à distinguer ce qui relève du nécessaire et du contingent dans l’administration de la justice. Ce faisant, les auteurs explorent la possibilité d’une justice dématérialisée et dépourvue de rituels.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.292 · 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