中圖分類號(hào)：D920.0
文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識(shí)碼：A
DOI:10.19358/j.issn.2097-1788.2023.07.003
引用格式：張芷維，馬佳羽.計(jì)算主義：我國(guó)法學(xué)量化研究的現(xiàn)實(shí)譜系［J］.網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全與數(shù)據(jù)治理，2023，42（7）：12-22，30.

Computationalism: the realistic ancestry of legal quantitative research in China

Abstract： As one of the research paradigms of computational law science, legal quantitative research is based on computationalism, its academic expression cannot be merged or assimilated by legal empirical research. It must be separated from the vague academic discourse system and identified separately. Taking the legal quantitative research published in China′s major legal journals from 2016 to 2022 as the research sample, we can generally draw the realistic ancestry of legal quantitative research in China. In terms of the research subject, the main academic institutions of legal quantitative research in China present the distribution characteristics of "CoreDivergence", and the "Core" is still the mainstream. As far as the research territory is concerned, the subject of legal quantitative research is gradually diversified, and yet still presents a situation of "One Dominance". While in the research purpose, China′s legal quantitative research carries the theoretical function of "Threeoneness", including the function of legal fact description (judicial phenomenon mining); the interpretation (doctrine), examination ( legal effect ), correction and construction function of principle ; the inspection (falsification and validation), correction (reconstruction) and creative function of theoretical aspect. These three functions are not separated from each other, but form a benign functional interaction mechanism of legal quantitative research by virtue of its internal "selfdriving and symbiosis" mechanism. The futureoriented legal quantitative research should take "computational law science" as the discipline conversion. On one hand, it would strengthen the methodological interaction with social science law and legal dogmatics. On the other hand, it needs to internalize the knowle

Key words : computational law science; legal quantitative research; legal empirical research; theoretical function; paradigm transformation