Franchir les limites de la salle de classe : une expérience de droit comparé en droit de la famille (Crossing Borders in the Classroom: A Comparative Law Experiment in Family Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les auteurs decrivent la mise sur pied d’un cours experimental transfrontieres offert a des etudiants du Canada, des Etats-Unis et du Mexique. Cette initiative pedagogique innovatrice est offerte de concert par des collegues de facultes de droit des trois pays et ce depuis 2003. Le module d’enseignement developpe cherche a enrichir les connaissances des participants et participantes en droit de la famille et en droit international prive. Le module permet aussi aux participants de chacun des territoires d’interagir les uns avec les autres, et d’apprendre avec des etudiants et etudiantes formes a un systeme juridique different, tout en restant chez eux. Par ailleurs, le projet vise a offrir un apprentissage pratique dans le domaine du droit de la famille en invitant les etudiants a resoudre des questions juridiques dans un cadre transnational et multilingue. Le module fait usage des nouvelles technologies d’enseignement, notamment la video conference, les sites Internet et le babillard electronique. Les auteurs examinent les avantages et les obstacles qui decoulent de ce type d’enseignement transfrontalier. Les conclusions tirees par les auteurs sont plus positives que negatives, mettant l’accent sur l’amelioration des competences inter-juridictionnelles des etudiants, l’importance grandissante du droit compare et du droit international dans le cursus des facultes de droit, l’elaboration d’outils pedagogiques permettant aux etudiants de penser comme des « avocats internationaux » et l’utilisation de l’expertise et les connaissances des etudiants et professeurs a l’etranger.What if law students in Mexico could talk to law students in Canada about same-sex marriage? What if law students in Texas could talk to law students in Arizona about the enforcement of agreements between cohabitants? What if all of these students could converse about the law’s response to domestic violence? These were some of the questions that family law professors tossed around at a curriculum development workshop sponsored by the North American Consortium of Legal Education (NACLE) in 2001. That first discussion led to the development of an experimental cross-border course which has been offered to American, Canadian, and Mexican law students since 2003. This article describes the development of the NACLE Family Law Module. By focusing on the experience of students and teachers during the three semesters in which the NACLE cross-border course has been offered, we will bring out the pedagogical value of cross-border teaching for law students and faculty, and examine the benefits and challenges of teaching across national boundaries. Finally, the review of our experience helps identify some implications for future iterations of the course.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".