MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964723810 · doi:10.7202/017258ar

Le droit pénal de l’environnement : une garantie d'impunité ?

2005· article· en· W1964723810 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Maryse Grandbois

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpunitySanctionsCLARITYLawStatutory lawCriminal lawMultitudePoliticsPolitical scienceTrespassState (computer science)Environmental lawSubject (documents)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The limits of pollution authorized by law are constantly being exceeded in Quebec and throughout Canada, as evidenced by acid rain, the disposal of dangerous refuse in nature and the uncontrolled use of pesticides. The criminal law on the environment exists, to be sure, but its application is highly relative. In principle, certain infractions under the Criminal Code can be used against polluters but the State rarely makes use of them. As to the statutory criminal law -the main subject of this article - the author notes that it suffers from a lack of clarity and precision. Complex and unorganized, it is characterized by a multitude of infractions and a disparity of sanctions. However, the fact is that the public administration very seldom resorts to the provisions of this law to have industrial activities conform to the laws and regulations. When it does do so, very often the courts hesitate to impose sanctions of a truly deterrent nature. In spite of all this, the fact is that the main obstacle to the criminal law on the environment is the lack of firm determination on the part of the legislators and public administrations to use severe measures against polluters. As long as this political will is lacking, notes the author, certain major industrials will continue to contaminate the environment with impunity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.243
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207