Le jugement comme pratique sociale : une réflexion sur la justice pénale brésilienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose d’approfondir l’analyse de la prise de décision judiciaire. Après avoir présenté une synthèse de l’approche traditionnelle de la prise de décision, on cherche à l’analyser à partir d’un regard sociologique. Elle est ainsi présentée comme (1) activité collaborative, (2) activité interactionnelle et (3) activité subjective. En examinant ces dimensions, inhérentes au processus décisionnel, le sens de la prise de décision comme pratique sociale est alors dégagé. Les données proviennent de notre recherche doctorale, au cours de laquelle nous avons eu l'occasion d’assister à 230 audiences sur une période de six mois au Palais de Justice de la ville de Rio de Janeiro (Brésil), et de réaliser des entretiens auprès de 23 juges pénaux.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".