Concevoir la matrice juridique dans un monde en constante évolution : Essai sur l’approche fonctionnelle du droit (An Essay on the Functional Approach to Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: L’approche fonctionnelle du droit, les principes d’equivalence fonctionnelle et de « neutralite » technologique sont trop souvent contraints au droit des technologies — et presentes comme y etant nait. Pourtant, l’approche et ses outils ont ete developpes bien avant les enjeux presentes par le numerique et presentent d’interessantes perspectives pour concevoir le droit dans un monde en constante evolution. Le present essai se propose ainsi de discuter et presenter l’approche fonctionnelle du droit. Loin de presenter une theorie du droit, notre objectif est de presenter une methode qui nous semble a meme d’etablir des legislations perennes et stables, d’accueillir les evolutions societales et contextuelles, et d’appliquer les regles de maniere a ne pas discriminer des situations fonctionnellement equivalentes. Dans une premiere partie, cet essai presente les origines et fondations theoriques de l’approche fonctionnelle du droit. Dans la seconde partie, nous exposons l’approche fonctionnelle comme une maniere de concevoir et de rediger le droit afin de lui permettre d’accueillir le futur, notamment par l’entremise des notions fonctionnelles. Dans la troisieme partie, nous etudions son volet interpretatif, offrant des methodes d’analyse, d’adaptation, d’application et de comparaison des regles de droit reposant sur l’equivalence fonctionnelle. (Ceci est une version non-editee du manuscrit qui sera publie dans la Revue de droit de McGill.) English Abstract: The functional approach to law, the principles of functional equivalence and technological “neutrality” are all too often constrained to technology law, and presented as its origin. However, the approach and its tools have been developed well before the challenges raised by the digital era, and provide for interesting ways to conceive legal rules in a world in constant evolution. This essay attempts to discuss and present this functional approach to law. Far from proposing a theory of law, our objective is to present a method that seems to provide for the drafting of lasting and stable statutes, accommodating societal and contextual changes, and for a non-discriminatory application of rules in functionally equivalent situations. In the Part I, this essay presents the theoretical origins and foundations of the functional approach to law. In the Part II, we expose the functional approach as a way of conceiving and writing the law in order to allow for future adaptability, notably through functional notions. In Part III, we study its interpretive part, offering to methods of analysis, adaptation, implementation and comparison of legal rules based on the functional equivalence. (This is a pre-print version of a paper to be published in McGill Law Journal.)
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".