De l’expertise «forensique» et de la décision judiciaire : domaines fertiles pour un effort de compréhension et de cohérence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention à la crédulité face à la preuve d’expertise : le juriste, juge ou avocat, doit avoir une connaissance suffisante de la science pour, lorsque confronté à une expertise, poser les questions pertinentes s’il est procureur ou encore exercer son rôle de gardien quant à l’admissibilité s’il est juge. L’expert «forensique», quant à lui doit s’ouvrir à la réalité juridique et comprendre que la culture juridique est distincte de celle des sciences expérimentales, qu’en conséquence, les conclusions du juge peuvent parfois différer de celles de l’expert. Le présent article est un appel aux juristes et aux experts à s’ouvrir à la réalité de l’autre et pour ce, à prendre connaissance des savoirs propres à chacun.
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 | 0.041 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.160 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".