Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à interroger les contraintes épistémologiques de production d’un discours juridique scientifique en mobilisant des notions issues du courant Droit et littérature. En relevant les enjeux relatifs à la normativité du discours doctrinal, l’approche proposée met l’emphase, dans la première partie, sur la réflexivité des juristes par rapport à leur propre discours et envisage des moyens littéraires, tel que la reformulation du contrat de lecture, afin de produire un discours doctrinal conscient de ses propres impensés. La deuxième partie consiste en un exercice d’application de méthodes littéraires à des notions de louage, en droit civil québécois, grâce à une conception « pataphysique » de la science juridique, dans le sillon de l’œuvre de l’auteur Alfred Jarry.
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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".