The Role of Jurisprudence in the Interpretation of the Law and Its Conformity with the Realities in the Law of Iran and France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The jurisprudence position difference in common law systems and the written law among the sources of law requires the study of the jurisprudence role in the interpretation of the law, and its adaptation to the realities of society. In Iranian law, jurisprudence means identical judgments of prosecutors from additional resources and commentary, and accepting the fact that, it could create a legal rule seems unlikely. In France, with the approval of the separation of powers and criticizing the classical doctrine, it seemed unlikely, the jurisprudence has a legislative role, however, such an idea has been expanded with all law branches and it seems to be a balance between resources related to legislate on the one hand and jurisprudence, on the other hand. Since, the rules express the general rules and it is impossible to predict the detail in the legislative practically, it is jurisprudence that could provide interpretations consistent with realities and social requirements of the law, in a complementary and commentary role. In this paper, the relationship between jurisprudence and interpretation of the law, especially in cases where we face with the need to interpret the law and the effectiveness of position on the interpretation of the law and its adaptation with the realities of society by jurisprudence will be discussed. These matters are examined with the descriptive analysis method that shows the importance of them in highlighting the role of jurisprudence in the legal system.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".