Foucault et les sciences humaines, un rapport de biais : l’exemple de la sociologie du droit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article expresses some ideas on the application of the methodological and epistemological principles, drawn from the concept of Michel Foucault, to legal sociology. In fact, Michel Foucault urged that his work be considered a tool-box where useful working instruments could be found. Among these, we find three types of instruments, conceptual, methodological and epistemological. This article discusses four epistemological principles taken from the work of Michel Foucault, namely (I) the break with anthro-pologism and with the cult of Man ; (2) rejection of the universals of thought; (3) the description of the paradigms for truth, understood as the conditions for true discourse, as defined in specific social formations ; (4) critical materialism. We also take into account a double principle of objectivication in the work of Foucault. The first of these principles acts at a more global level whereas the second operates analytically. We discuss how these epistemological principles and these objectivication forms guided us in our related sociological studies on the law. We also show how these studies were inspired by the work of Foucault, who, like De la gouvernementalité, were published after his death.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".