Changer les lois, les idées, les pratiques : réflexions sur l’échec de la réforme de la détermination de la peine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une explication pour l’échec de la récente réforme de la détermination de la peine. Il souligne d’abord des déficiences graves dans les sources formelles du droit qui prétendaient l’instituer, tant sur le plan des textes législatifs et de leur interprétation que sur celui de leurs assises philosophiques et doctrinales. Cependant, au-delà des contradictions et des incohérences qui affligent les sources formelles, le droit de la peine et de sa détermination comporte une composante étonnamment complexe de règles systémiques et de pratiques, générée par les acteurs pour résoudre les tensions internes du système de justice pénal. L’incapacité des réformateurs de comprendre la signification de cette composante et d’en tenir compte dans le projet de réforme vouait cette dernière à l’échec.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".