Vitesse ou précipitation ? La question du temps dans le traitement des affaires pénales en France et en Belgique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le temps a changé de valeur dans le fonctionnement des institutions pénales. La réponse instantanée à toute sollicitation est devenue l’objectif prioritaire dans le travail des parquets. L’efficacité de la réponse pénale impose de rapprocher autant que possible le temps de la sanction de celui de l’infraction. Les normes de bonne gestion publique passent par la quantification des affaires et la réduction des délais de traitement. Cette tendance générale est observée ici dans une perspective comparative : France et Belgique. Alors que, dans les deux pays, les discours tenus mettent uniformément l’accent sur l’efficacité accrue des services, les comparaisons effectuées font ressortir des décalages importants dans les modalités du traitement rapide. Une réflexion générale peut alors être engagée sur les régimes de changement qui prévalent au sein de l’institution judiciaire dans les deux pays.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".