JURISPRUDENCE EN DROIT PRIVÉ FRANÇAIS ET EXIGENCES DE SÉCURITÉ JURIDIQUE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Voir Mathieu DEVINAT, tude de mthodologie juridique compare sur la rgle prtorienne en droit civil franais et dans la common law canadienne, Aix-en-Provence, Presses universitaires d'Aix-Marseille, coll. Laboratoire de thorie du droit, 2005. Mathieu Devinat crit que dans le systme du droit civil franais, la diffrence de la loi, la rgle jurisprudentielle ne connat pas un mode d'existence rgul par une norme suprieure . De telle sorte que la prtention qu'il existe des rgles jurisprudentielles devait amener les acteurs du droit s'interroger sur ce qui, dans la production judiciaire, est susceptible de provoquer l'mergence d'une rgle. C'est d'ailleurs ce que fit la communaut juridique franaise. Aprs avoir reconnu le caractre normatif de la jurisprudence, cette dernire s'est attele la tche fondamentale de dfinir une mthode correspondant cet objet nouveau. Pour cette raison, les modalits d'existence et de mise en oeuvre de la rgle jurisprudentielle ne relvent pas d'un encadrement d'origine tatique, mais elles dpendent essentiellement d'un discours htroclite et changeant, celui des artisans du droit, c'est--dire les juristes (p. 2).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".