Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis le début des années 2000 semble s’établir un consensus à la fois criminologique et politique au sujet d’une nouvelle donne culturelle en regard de la question pénale. Dans le champ pénal, ce (relatif) consensus est saisi par le biais d’expressions telles que « virage punitif » et « nouvelle punitivité ». En sciences sociales, trois principaux groupes de symptômes sont utilisés pour établir le diagnostic de cette mutation générale de la pénalité : le boom carcéral, la prison post-disciplinaire, et la réémergence d’une pénalité ‘expressive’. Cette contribution propose de disséquer la façon dont le changement social, particulièrement dans le domaine de la pénalité institutionnalisée, est théorisé par les analystes du virage punitif. Les cinq ‘sociologies du virage punitif’ qui dominent les débats théoriques dans le champ pénal académique anglo-saxon sont ici analysées. Cette analyse révèle notamment leur timidité critique et leur conception réductrice du champ pénal.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".