Justice et accélération sociale : quels changements pour les praticien.ne.s du droit ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La sante psychologique des avocat·e·s en pratique privee est precaire : c’est du moins ce qu’en concluent de recentes etudes. Le present article propose d’etablir un lien entre cette vulnerabilite et le rapport au temps de cette categorie de juristes, soumis, comme c’est le cas pour la population en general, a l’acceleration sociale. Deux aspects seront etudies : l’augmentation du rythme et l’accroissement de la densite temporelle. Afin de mieux comprendre le rapport au temps que ce phenomene induit, on distinguera le temps de l’horloge, designe aussi comme temps abstrait, du temps concret de la tâche qui, dans le cas des praticien·ne·s du droit, est un exercice de reflexion et d’ideation de solutions aux problemes juridiques de leurs clienteles. Nous en conclurons que les temps concrets, grandement influences par l’ethos professionnel, obeissent a des imperatifs de l’ordre de l’emotion, par exemple, la satisfaction, la reconnaissance ou la securite. La volonte de se conformer a ces imperatifs dans un contexte d’urgence ou de reduction des delais amene, dans certains cas, les avocat·e·s a inscrire leur travail dans un « temps clandestin », c’est-a-dire dans des temporalites autres que les heures de travail regulieres ou le temps consacre a la famille.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".