La corégulation d’Internet (ou comment répondre à la plurinormativité par l’internormativité) — Une contribution française
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les pouvoirs publics, du moins en Europe et en particulier en France, semblent préférer que les activités privées se déroulent dans un contexte de corégulation et d’internormativité, donc de coopération des sources du droit, plutôt que d’autorégulation et de plurinormativité, soit de concurrence des sources du droit. C’est pourquoi ils encourageraient la corégulation et, par voie de conséquence, l’internormativité. Ainsi certains procédés de production du droit évoluent-ils et la corégulation constitue-t-elle peut-être un objet d’étude intéressant pour la méthodologie juridique. Prenant l’exemple du droit d’Internet, l’auteur cherche à mieux circonscrire ces enjeux de même que les réponses apportées par la doctrine et les institutions, spécialement en France.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".