La Comite europeen de prevention de la torture: Mecanisme de controle des etablissements de detention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring detention centres in Europe has become a crucial concern because of the overcrowding and poor physical living conditions in some of these institutions. Since 1987, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), a unique prevention mechanism, has visited detention centres in different countries and drawn up recommendations for the states concerned. Using some concrete examples, this article examines how the CPT fulfils its monitoring mission, creates penitentiary norms, and influences the practices of correctional systems across Europe. The analysis of this mechanism allows us to conclude that the CPT is a good example and a useful tool for improving living conditions in detention centres as well as for protecting prisoners' rights. En Europe, la question du contr�le des �tablissements de d�tention se pose de facüon d'autant plus accrue que les locaux sont v�tustes et en proie � une importante surpopulation. Depuis 1987, un m�canisme original de pr�vention de la torture et des mauvais traitements des d�tenus, le Comit� europ�en pour la pr�vention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou d�gradants (CPT) effectue des visites des lieux de d�tention et formule des recommandations aux � tats concern�s. En donnant quelques exemples concrets (notamment du cas francüais), cet article examine comment le CPT exerce sa mission de contr�le, cr�e des normes p�nitentiaires et exerce une influence sur les pratiques p�nitentiaires europ�ennes. L'analyse r�alis�e permet de soutenir que le CPT constitue, de nos jours, un outil pertinent et un exemple � suivre pour am�liorer les conditions de d�tention et prot�ger les droits des prisonniers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".