Conference: The Legitimate Ambit of Criminalization (April 2016)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Nathanson Centre and Robina Institute joint international conferenceFriday, 1 April – Sunday, 3 April, 2016Location: Room 1014, Ignat Kaneff Building Osgoode Hall Law School York University 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 Background and Conference Theme\nFrom 2008 to 2012, a number of leading criminal law theorists (Duff, Farmer, Marshall, Renzo, and Tadros) engaged in an ambitious project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the United Kingdom. The task they set for themselves was to try and answer the questions of what should be criminalized, according to what goals and principles, what forms this criminalization should take, and how it should be applied. The group organized a series of meetings and workshops on different aspects of this inquiry, involving a large number of criminal law scholars from across the globe. The project led to a number of notable publications, including four edited volumes: The Boundaries of Criminal Law (OUP 2010), The Structures of Criminal Law (OUP 2011), The Constitution of Criminal Law (OUP 2013), and Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law (OUP 2014).\nThe introduction to the last volume sets out key areas of research that the conveners of the Project felt they were unable to tackle satisfactorily, given the inherent complexity of the issues at stake and the time-bounded character of their work. The most salient ones are: 1. Processes of criminalization: who apart from legislatures has/should have the power/authority to determine what is substantively criminalized? What about prosecutors and police? How different is the process at the international level? 2. The need to ground a normative account of criminalization – whether it focuses on substantive or procedural conditions for legitimate criminalization – in a political theory (which is clearly connected to (1)), and to understand criminal law as part of the political structure of the state. Connected to this is the question whether similar or different theories should be applied at the domestic and international levels. 3. The attractions/drawbacks of looking for a grand unitary theory of criminalization based on some single principle or value (harm; Rechtsgut; dignity; sovereignty; civil order…). 4. The relationship/division of labor between criminal law and other modes of regulation/other ways of responding to wrongs – including e.g. administrative regulatory regimes, tort law, restorative justice processes, etc. \nThe main aim of this conference is to continue to build on the work done in the context of the Criminalization Project to advance our understanding of these issues and other related ones.\nTo do so, we are bringing together a group of dynamic and original early and mid-career criminal law theorists, many of whom did not have a chance to participate in the Criminalization Project. It is our hope that their fresh perspectives will allow us to make further progress in unraveling the complexity of the issues outlined, and contribute to unveiling new vistas and questions from which to better understand the legitimate ambit of criminalization, domestically and/or internationally. Conference Program\nSee attached file.\nClick here for conference papers (Password protected)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,102 | 0,018 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».