La technique juridique, objet de science sociale ? Pour une sociologie pragmatique des controverses techniques en droit (Legal Technique, an Object of Social Science? For a Pragmatic Sociology of Technical Controversies in Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: L’entree des sciences sociales dans le monde universitaire, il y a plus d’un siecle, a fait de l’etude des phenomenes juridiques un territoire dispute : comment, desormais, concilier les pretentions concurrentes des juristes et des sociologues de tenir un discours vrai a propos du droit ? L’une des manieres convenues d’assurer une coexistence pacifique entre les disciplines fut le partage des points de vue de chacune sur le droit : alors que les juristes de formation privilegient un point de vue interne sur le droit, les sciences sociales adopteraient un point de vue externe sur celui-ci. Un tel decoupage des perspectives interne et externe sur le droit tend toutefois a detourner les sociologues et les autres chercheurs des sciences sociales de certains pans de la realite juridique, juges trop « techniques ». Cet article entend faciliter l’apprehension de la technique juridique autrement que sur le mode doctrinal auquel nous ont habitue les facultes de droit. Si la technique juridique consiste, selon les juristes, en une activite de mise en forme du droit, censee permettre sa realisation effective, une telle activite de mise en forme constitue en elle-meme une pratique sociale dont l’etude meriterait d’etre approfondie par les sciences sociales. Nous proposons en ce sens quelques elements de methode, inspires de la sociologie pragmatique, en vue de mieux apprehender les ressorts et les effets sociaux des controverses techniques en droit. English Abstract: Social science's entry into the academia over a century ago has turned the study of legal phenomena into a disputed territory: how, henceforth, should the competing claims of legal scholars and sociologists to hold a true discourse about law be reconciled? A conventional way to ensure a peaceful coexistence was to split each discipline's perspective on the law: while jurists would study law from the inside, social scientists would adopt an external viewpoint on it. Such a division between internal and external perspectives on law, however, tends to divert sociologists and other social scientists from certain aspects of law’s reality deemed too technical. This article strives to facilitate the understanding of legal technique differently from the doctrinal approach developed in law schools. Legal technique, for jurists, refers to the activity of putting the law into forms, so as to allow its effective realization. Such formalization of law, however, itself constitutes a social practice whose study deserves to be deepened by the social sciences. To this end, this article proposes some elements of method, inspired by pragmatic sociology, to better apprehend the social motives and effects of technical controversies in 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 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".