De l’existence d’une norme de l’anormal. Portée et valeur de la recherche empirique au regard du droit vivant : une contribution à la sociologie du droit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le texte qui suit, l’auteure postule que l’étude du droit par l’entremise des méthodes de sciences sociales, et notamment de l’empirie, est un moyen réflexif d’étudier le droit et les normes et de révéler la dynamique des changements sociaux et juridiques, plus particulièrement circonscrire la place de l’individu dans la dynamique normative et, incidemment, illustrer en quoi le droit et les normes constituent des vecteurs du lien social. La recherche empirique démontre notamment que la mobilisation des normes dépend d’un processus d’appropriation par lequel l’acteur matérialise son rôle social et le sens qu’il donne à son action. La mise en évidence du décalage entre le droit des textes et le droit vivant permet d’appréhender les impasses conceptuelles et paradigmatiques qui influent sur la cohérence interne du droit et constituent des obstacles majeurs à son application.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".