De la police au tribunal : formulation et cheminement des plaintes portées devant la Cour du Québec, Chambre criminelle et pénale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, no one really knows exactly how cases go through the maze of legal proceedings after being filed. Based on a sampling ofl 795 requests to undertake legal proceedings presented by the Montreal Urban Community Police Service to "la Cour du Québec, chambre criminelle et pénale" (Quebec Criminal Court) and dealt with by this tribunal in 1989, the authors take a close look at how the intervention of the police (usual access to the judiciary system) and the intervention of the tribunal (decision making element of prime importance) are linked. Greater importance is given to three particular aspects of this matter. First, the authors consider how the police and the tribunal formulate the accusation. This allows them to throw a new light on the problem of over charging. Secondly, the authors reflect on the equally questionable issue of temporary custody at both the police and the tribunal levels. Finally, the authors conclude by examining the processing of cases at the tribunal level.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".