La Vie Formulaire – Entre Procédure Judiciaire Et Dérive Administrative Du Droit D’Hier À Aujourd’Hui
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since time immemorial, forms have framed the practice of law to such an extent that the major role they play today should not come as a surprise even to a lawyer who would otherwise be inclined to explain their prominence by the increasing use of electronic technologies. However, the influence of forms on the everyday routine of practitioners and parties is something new and goes beyond the simple constraints imposed by information technology, because their role in framing practice is on the way to imposing itself like a source of authority. This article explores the challenges surrounding forms, starting with Antiquity, in order to illustrate how formulas worked when forms were simply a flexible framework that anyone could adapt to their needs. It ends by looking at contemporary practice in Quebec – where the formularisation of civil procedure has been in evidence since the latest reform of the Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force on 1 January 2016 – and in the European Union, where regulations on judicial cooperation provide forms for parties as well as judges.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".