MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378978164 · doi:10.3167/hrrh.2023.490206

L'influence des organisations internationales sur les politiques publiques de l'enseignement supérieur au Mexique et la configuration des programmes d’études du diplôme de Droit

2023· article· en· W4378978164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana Brisa Oropeza Chávez

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceExplicationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this article is to analyze the possible influence of certain international organizations that granted funding to Mexico during the 1980s and 1990s, on higher education. It focuses on the curricular design of Law degree programs and, from that basis, provides a provisional explanation of the progressive “technocratization” of the curricula of liberal baccalaureates, especially those corresponding to the training in Law from the late twentieth century until today. The main purpose of this research is to find some of the causes that explain the suppression of subjects such as the History of Law (Roman, national, or universal) or the Philosophy of Law, fundamental disciplines in the formation of the legal criterion and the general culture of any jurist. Résumé L'objectif de ce texte est d'analyser la possible influence de certaines organisations internationales qui ont accordé du financement au Mexique dans les années quatre-vingt et quatre-vingt-dix du siècle dernier, sur l'enseignement supérieur de ce pays. Nous nous concentrons sur la conception curriculaire des programmes du diplôme de Droit et, à partir de là, nous proposons une explication provisoire de la “technocratisation” progressive des programmes d’études des baccalauréats libérales, en particulier celle correspondant à la formation en Droit à cette époque jusqu’à nos jours. Ceci dans le but de trouver certaines des causes qui expliquent la suppression de sujets tels que l'Histoire du Droit (romain, national ou universel) ou la Philosophie du Droit, disciplines fondamentales dans la formation du critère juridique et la culture générale de tout juriste.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical Reflections/Réflexions HistoriquesSame topicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesFrench-language works237,207