L’EXIGENCE DE SECURITE JURIDIQUE : « LE FAIRE JURIDIQUE » A L’EPREUVE DE LA CONFIANCE COSOCIETAIRE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé : Comment comprendre la sécurité juridique ? L’auteur l’envisage en tant qu’une exigence, que les acteurs d’un système juridique s’engagent à respecter, réaliser et perfectionner au bénéfice des justiciables. Il soutient que c’est un faux pas intellectuel de comprendre la « sécurité juridique » exclusivement comme un concept dogmatique ou théorique, là où il convient mieux de la comprendre dans sa pratique et comme une ambition relative au comment « faire-le-droit ». De ce fait, l’auteur cherche à rendre cette exigence plus claire et limpide en analysant comment les acteurs du système juridique comprennent et s’engagent en faveur d’une sécurité complexe comprise à partir des justiciables. Il analyse la sécurité juridique à lumière de l’autonomie du droit ainsi que dans le service qu'elle rend efficacement, adéquatement et juridiquement aux justiciables. Enfin, l’auteur soutient que la sécurité juridique se vérifie exclusivement dans le degré de confiance réelle et honnête que les cosociétaires accordent au système juridique. "Legal certainty" is one of the requirements which a legal system will acquire and which it undertakes to respect.The word "legal certainty" (as well as that of "judicial certainty") will be expressed within a modern legal order. Its ambition is to live up to this aspiration and to optimize it as much as possible. Therefore, legal certainty expresses only a set of prerequisites to be fulfilled and which every man would reasonably wish to see fulfilled, by and within a legal system at his service.This will be the subject of our article. It should be noted, however, that the meaning to be attributed to these requirements is far from being entirely clear, limpid and uncontroversial.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it