QUELLE PLACE POUR LE DROIT NATIONAL DANS L’ENSEIGNEMENT DU DROIT EN EUROPE ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’heure d’une mondialisation accélérée, faut-il encore centrer la formation des étudiants juristes sur le droit national, sauf à en spécialiser ensuite certains sur le droit international et le droit comparé? Ne faut-il pas, en renversant la perspective, former d’abord les étudiants à être des juristes du monde, sauf à les spécialiser ensuite dans tel ou tel droit national? À partir de son observation du programme transsystémique de l’Université McGill et de son expérience actuelle à l’Université du Luxembourg, l’auteur examine cette question dans le contexte européen. Si, de son point de vue, il est exclu d’envisager aujourd’hui à grande échelle une transnationalisation de l’enseignement du droit en Europe, tant à raison des besoins encore limités que des obstacles importants au développement de ce type de formation, l’auteur plaide pour la mise en place, dans des contextes limités, d’expériences de transnationalisation dont il examine les conditions et les modalités.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".