Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nicolas Derasse, The « défenseurs officieux » : a Defense without the Bar. Wishing to bring justice closer to the Nation, the Constituants allowed citizens to defend themselves and to designate the legal counsel of their choice to represent them. The liberty of the defense thus came to be the norm beginning in January 1791, and emphasized the emergence of new actors for the defense. These men, replacing the avocats whose functions had been suppressed at the beginning of the Revolution, were not subject to any professional regime. Given the confidence of each party in the legal proceeding, they should ideally defend each, and could offer their services without financial compensation. Their professional career, criticized from the beginning of the Revolution, shows that the Constituent Assembly, despite its ambitions, did not manage to overturn the notion that to defend the accused is a speciality reserved to legal practitioners. Thus this sort of defense was above all a stage in the history of the judicial bar during the French Revolution and the Consulat, a distinct period when the judicial officials whatever their professional origin, aroused certain misgiving from the public and from the constituted authorites alike.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".