Comment la common law et le droit codifié sont-ils devenus deux modèles juridiques antagonistes ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le droit comparé a habitué les juristes à l’opposition entre systèmes de common law et systèmes de droit codifié. Mais d’où vient cet antagonisme qui conduit à opposer de façon exagérée chaque trait d’identité de chacun de ces deux systèmes juridiques ? Le présent article, qui condense plusieurs années de recherche, insiste sur la période 1820-1835. Aux États-Unis et au Royaume-Uni, une longue et violente controverse embrase alors les milieux politiques et les professions juridiques autour d’une question redoutable : faut-il abroger le système de common law au profit de la codification ? Ce qui, du fait de la dynamique même de la controverse, a creusé un abîme infranchissable entre les partisans de l’un et l’autre camps ; ainsi, deux armées et deux ensembles d’argumentaires ont favorisé l’antagonisme entre deux systèmes dont la doctrine contemporaine a hérité.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".