À la croisée du droit des obligations et de l’ingénierie financière — Remarques sur la nécessité sociale de l’analyse juridique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte propose un croisement entre le droit des obligations et certaines techniques de l’ingénierie financière qui se sont révélées au public lors de la grande crise de 2007 : la titrisation des créances et le crédit dérivé. Il en ressort à un premier niveau de lecture que, si ces techniques correspondent à la structure de l’obligation juridique lorsqu’on considère l’opération de financement qu’elles configurent, elles ont aussi vocation à déstabiliser cette structure lorsqu’on considère la logique du refinancement qui les anime. À un second niveau de lecture, ce travail indique la nécessité de recourir à l’analyse juridique afin de pousser notre compréhension de certains phénomènes sociaux, tels que la crise financière en question. Il suggère que les intermédiaires conceptuels, culturels ou sémiotiques du droit, ainsi que l’ensemble de ses tropes, sont plus profondément implantés dans la culture, le langage et l’appareil conceptuel de nos sociétés qu’au niveau de la règle, du jugement ou de l’exercice du pouvoir politique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".