MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995795405 · doi:10.7202/004719ar

Le crime pardonné

2002· article· fr· W1995795405 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedieval and Early Modern Justice
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEconomic JusticeEthnologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deux modèles de justice criminelle coexistent tout au long des XVI e , XVII e et XVIII e siècles : celui de la justice royale fondé sur la condamnation et la punition, et celui, plus caché, de la justice réparatrice, fondé sur la négociation et l'accommodement, hérité du Moyen Âge. Mais à partir du XVI e siècle, le souverain qui a monopolisé l'exercice de la justice, le droit de punir, s'est aussi réservé le droit de pardonner. Punir et pardonner constituent ainsi les deux volets complémentaires d'une double stratégie de maintien de l'ordre, fondée à la fois sur l'éclat des supplices et la générosité du pardon. Pour être pardonné, l'accusé doit reconnaître son crime, en demander pardon au souverain. Celui-ci lui accorde sa rémission, moyennant la réparation des dommages causés à la victime, ou à sa famille, et le paiement d'une amende au profit du souverain. La justice réparatrice s'inscrit désormais dans un modèle de « justice imposée » où la négociation est reléguée dans l'accord conclu avec la partie offensée.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.016

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 head0.565
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.185 · 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