Les politiques et les pratiques en matière correctionnelle adulte au Québec : 1960-1985
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To proceed with an account and evaluation of the policies and practices in adult corrections in Quebec from 1960 to 1985 is to cover the period when the most spectacular reforms took place. The article points out that it is only since 1969 that Quebec has a centralized correctional sector under the authority of a director general. Before this date it was the sheriff who, in each of the territorial divisions in which he worked, assumed all correctional responsibility, by law, without any common philosophical basis. Quebec having proceeded with the construction of its adult correctional system step by step, by means of five year plans, the study of the assessment and evaluation of its policies and practices is divided into five year periods. This method has the advantage of furnishing the reader with a detailed view of the entire ascending progression of the correctional sector from 1960 to 1985, as well as its strengths and weaknesses. Above all, it gives the reader an understanding of the philosophical trends that guided its establishment and describes the principal actors and circumstancial events whereby, in the 1980's, the sector has come to function according to a unity of thought, and in a context of complimentarity with the other agencies of the criminal justice system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".