Nommer le Royaume-Uni : la classification des formes politiques au prisme des traditions savantes britannique, française et canadienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette thèse explore comment la classification juridique du Royaume-Unidiffère selon les traditions intellectuelles britanniques, françaises et canadiennes. Elle examine les discours savants produits dans chacune de ces traditions, en particulier à partir des listes de lectures et des manuels utilisés en droit constitutionnel. L’étude montre comment la forme politique britannique, complexe et évolutive, est saisie différemment selon les contextes académiques et savants, révélant des structures implicites, des biais méthodologiques et des particularismes épistémologiques. En adoptant une perspective comparée réflexive, cette recherche met en lumière les conditions de possibilité du savoir constitutionnel et interroge la pertinence même de la classification comme opération intellectuelle. Le Royaume-Uni, objet résistant à la catégorisation classique, devient ainsi le révélateur privilégié des logiques classificatoires propres à chaque tradition savante étudiée.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".