Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beaucoup plus qu'un dictionnaire traditionnel, cet ouvrage est un véritable voyage au pays de la common law. L'ouvrage ne se limite pas aux notions de droit, mais s'étend aux personnalités, aux événements et aux institutions qui ont marqué l'histoire de la common law. Le choix des entrées reflète cette passion qui anime les auteurs depuis plus de quarante ans.Cette nouvelle édition tient compte des derniers travaux du Comité canadien de normalisation du vocabulaire français de la common law, notamment dans le domaine du droit de la famille. Chacun des articles du dictionnaire a été revu et actualisé avec soin. Le lecteur appréciera sans doute le format légèrement plus compact de l’ouvrage et la présentation plus élégante des entrées.L’ouvrage vise non seulement les praticiens – actuels et futurs – de la common law en français, mais aussi quiconque s’intéresse au rôle vital du droit dans la société. Civilistes, journalistes, traducteurs, sociologues, politologues, comptables… qui n’est pas appelé quasi quotidiennement à s’interroger sur les fondements et notions de la common law ?
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.010 |
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".