La recherche en droit au Québec: Jalons pour une approche sociologique (Legal Research in Quebec: A Sociological Perspective)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Les juristes ont traditionnellement evalue la qualite de leur production scientifique en recourant a des methodes plutot qualitatives que bibliometriques, a l’abri d’une trop forte concurrence internationale. Subissant l’influence des sciences dites exactes, ils sont desormais pousses a suivre le modele evaluatif et competitif de ces dernieres. Or une telle evolution ne va pas de soi. Meme si la science juridique s’est fortement internationalisee et europeanisee, le cadre national et regional du droit, du moins du droit interne, constitue un frein puissant a une concurrence entre chercheuses et chercheurs a l’exterieur des frontieres nationales.Les enjeux, de taille, ne se reduisent pas a l’aspect financier. Les methodes et les criteres utilises pour evaluer la recherche ne vont-ils pas influencer la nature meme de celle-ci ? Sont-ils adaptes aux caracteristiques de la recherche en droit ? Les effets incitatifs resultant des procedures d’evaluation peuvent-ils etre concilies avec la liberte academique ? Les juristes ne sont-ils pas forces de redefinir la notion meme de « recherche » en droit ou, pour le moins, d’expliciter la methodologie juridique a l’attention du monde scientifique et politique ? En reponse a ces questions, cet ouvrage suggere quelques pistes de reflexion, tant sur le plan theorique que par le partage de diverses experiences internationales et nationales.English Abstract: Traditionally, research in law has been assessed within different national jurisdictions, based on methods that were more qualitative than quantitative, and not subject to international competition. Following a process initiated by natural sciences’ linear understanding of progress, legal scholars are now encouraged to engage in research assessment by measurement. Such a process is not self-evident. Although much more internationalized and europeanized over the past few years, legal research remains to a large extent focused on questions within a specific national or regional legal framework, which hinders competition between researchers on the international level.The questions at stake are not exclusively financial ones. Could methods and criteria commonly used to assess both qualitative and quantitative impact of research affect in its core the nature of research? Do they fit to the characteristics of research in law? Are these processes reconcilable with academic freedom? Are legal scholars called to redefine the very notion of research in law or, at least, to better explain legal methodology to academia and politics? By delving into these questions, this book suggests some avenues to be explored, from a theoretical viewpoint as well as by sharing different international and national perspectives.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".