Les droits des détenus et leur contrôle : enjeux actuels de la situation canadienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose un bref aperçu de l’évolution des droits des personnes détenues au Canada. En dressant le bilan actuel au regard des écrits de Pierre Landreville, nous mettons tout d’abord l’accent sur le cheminement normatif parcouru ainsi que sur les limites rencontrées en termes de ressources nécessaires à la pleine concrétisation des droits des détenus. La seconde partie de cet article analyse les défis contemporains que pose le contrôle du respect des droits des détenus. En se basant sur une recherche empirique récente, nous confrontons l’état d’avancement et l’impact de deux mécanismes de contrôle réclamés dès 1973 par Pierre Landreville : l’Enquêteur correctionnel et le Comité de prévention de la torture des Nations Unies. Nous concluons par une discussion sur l’impact des mécanismes de contrôle et leur utilisation par l’État en tant qu’outil de légitimation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".