Bibliographic record
Abstract
Présence insoupçonnée par plusieurs, le récit enfantin dans la jurisprudence laisse présager, lorsqu’on en fait la recension, que ce type de récit est fort apprécié des magistrats et pour cause : il poursuit les mêmes objectifs que l’adage juridique. Outre qu’il enrichit le discours, le récit, à l’instar de l’adage, remue, oriente, dynamise et inspire la réflexion juridique. En tant que leçons essentielles et intemporelles, l’adage et le récit partagent plusieurs points en commun sur le plan du fond (fonctions réflexive, argumentative, esthétique, etc.) et sur le plan de la forme (origine lointaine, parfois incertaine et esthétisme de la formule). S’ils partagent des fins communes, le récit s’avère d’utilisation plus polyvalente, notamment en raison de sa structure narrative, de la qualification des faits, de l’appréciation de la crédibilité, de la vulgarisation du savoir juridique. Enfin, le récit est un précieux outil rhétorique que le plaideur a avantage à maîtriser et, avant tout, à connaître. La formation du juriste devrait-elle inclure une relecture du récit enfantin ?
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".