Bibliographic record
Abstract
S’il ne fait pas de doute que les avocats contribuent à l’accès à la justice, contribuent-ils également à la justice sociale ? La profession d’avocat a connu des changements considérables dans les dernières décennies, mais les clivages qui la traversent sont restés intacts. La lutte contre les discriminations revient pour l’essentiel aux avocats judiciaires, qui représentent, au civil et au pénal les justiciables démunis ou en difficulté. D’autres segments du barreau se trouvent peu concernés par l’action en justice et concentrent davantage de ressources. Pourtant, la profession présente un front uni et maintient sa position malgré ces clivages, ce qui donne tout son intérêt à l’étude de ses instances dirigeantes. En prenant appui sur une recherche portant sur le rôle que joue l’Ordre des avocats, notamment en matière de discipline et dans le développement du numérique, cette conférence questionne l’impact des transformations récentes sur la vie judiciaire et la manière dont les avocats participent à l’exercice de la justice.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".