Les victimes de viol devant les tribunaux à la fin du Moyen Âge d’après les sources dijonnaises et lyonnaises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of the Middle Ages, the manner in which the courts of justice punished rapists clearly shows how seriously such crimes were judged at that time. Endeavoring to increase their juristic power and worrying that the propagation of rape would corrupt the entire society and threaten its survival, impelled the judges and their officials —princes, bishops, and municipal bodies — to deal with all complaints and to initiate inquiries about them. A study of the progressive steps undertaken in the preliminary investigations of these cases reveals that after an inquiry into the accuser's reputation, the judges demanded numerous proofs from the victim about the rape. Moreover, a clinical examination was demanded from a midwife. Thus, in addition to the scientific proof and the witness's statements, the investigators were able to arrive at a better assessment of the rapist. The rapist, in turn, under the distressful solitude in his cell where he had been incarcerated by the police as soon as the complaint was made, finally admitted to the crime and renounced having degraded and defamed his accuser, ft was then up to the court to punish the offender. These offenders were treated severely, particularly if they had attacked moral and social values by deflowering children and virgins.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".