La contribution des blogues Juridiques à la connaissance, à la critique et aux transformations du droit (The Contribution of Law Blogs to Knowledge, to the Criticism and to the Transformations of Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le blogging juridique est un phenomene tout juste emergent au Quebec comparativement a d’autres systemes juridiques ou il est pratique de longue date. La blogosphere juridique quebecoise compte aujourd’hui une cinquantaine de blogues actifs. Pourtant, ils demeurent encore meconnus de la communaute juridique qui, bien souvent, ne leur accorde que peu de valeur. Cet article tente de montrer, notamment a l’aide d’exemples etrangers, dans quelle mesure les blogues juridiques peuvent contribuer a la diffusion du savoir juridique mais aussi a la critique et aux transformations du droit. Avant de discuter de la nature et de la valeur de la contribution des blogues (II), l’auteur dresse un portrait de la blogosphere juridique (I) et finit par s’interroger sur l’influence reelle ou potentielle des blogues juridiques sur les acteurs du droit (III).English Abstract: The legal blogging is a just emergent phenomenon in Quebec compared to other legal systems where it is practised of long time. The Quebec’s legal blogosphere counts about fifty active blogs today. However, they remain still ignored by legal community which, very often, grants only little value to them. This article tries to show, in particular using foreign examples, up to what point lawblogs can contribute to the diffusion of the legal knowledge but also to criticism and the transformations of law. Before discussing the nature and value of the lawblogs contribution (II), the author draws up a portrait of the legal blogosphere (I) and ends up wondering about the real or potential influence lawblogs on law’s actors (III).
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".