Bibliographic record
Abstract
Afin de contribuer au débat sur l’accès à la justice des personnes non expertes du droit, je défends dans le présent article qu’en encourageant la participation par le bas, les cliniques juridiques jouent un rôle de médiateur social et juridique. Dans la première partie, j’explique le concept de clinique juridique en clarifiant ses origines et sa diffusion aux États-Unis et en Europe en identifiant l’essence de la « mission clinique » que Richard Wilson a définie comme « lawyering with conscience ». Dans la deuxième partie, je présente des projets de recherche-action que je suis en train de développer à l’Université de Naples Federico II. Ces projets valorisent la collaboration des usagers et des institutions, spécialement dans le domaine des apatrides et de la protection internationale. L’objectif du présent article est de réfléchir à la modélisation d’outils participatifs qui encouragent la prise de conscience et l’encapacitation des usagers dans différents domaines juridiques et sociaux.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".