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 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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".