« Si on m’avait écouté dès le début, si on avait écouté mon récit. » Le narrativisme comme legs de la Critical Race Theory dans la pensée juridique canadienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine la méthode narrative élaborée par les critical race scholars pour faire émerger les subjectivités marginalisées dans la pensée juridique. Nous soutenons que cette méthode, reposant notamment sur la métaphore et le récit personnel, a permis d’ouvrir la voie à l’expression juridique de l’expérience subjective, ce que la littérature juridique classique, postulant sa propre objectivé, avait largement occulté. Nous observons comment les pratiques narratives et le cadre élaboré par la Critical Race Theory ont pu inciter les tribunaux canadiens à appréhender les inégalités raciales en soulignant le caractère mythique de la justice « colorblind » . Nous formulons finalement des remarques sur la compatibilité particulière des traditions de common law avec les pratiques narratives, et sur leur difficile exportation dans les États de tradition civiliste.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".