Bibliographic record
Abstract
Droit et surnaturel : l’appariement est, à notre connaissance, inédit dans les travaux juridiques francophones. Il s’agit du thème d’un colloque qui s’est tenu à la Faculté de droit d’Aix-en-Provence le 27 septembre 2013 et qui a donné lieu à la publication de l’ouvrage éponyme que l’on souhaite présenter ici. Ce colloque aux ambitions scientifiques très sérieuses, en dépit d’un thème peu académique, avait pour objectif d’explorer les relations, aussi surprenantes, inattendues qu’improbables, qui peuvent unir le droit au surnaturel. Bien que l’ouvrage porte en grande partie sur le droit français, il mérite d’être offert à la curiosité mais aussi à la sagacité des juristes québécois. Après en avoir présenté le contenu, nous aimerions donc attirer l’attention du lecteur aussi bien sur l’intérêt de l’ouvrage que sur celui de la démarche qui a présidé à sa rédaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".