L'engagement de ne pas troubler l'ordre public dans les causes de violence conjugale ayant fait l'objet d'un abandon des poursuites judiciaires criminelles (art. 810 C.CR.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the perceptions and practices of judicial and psychosocial intervenors with regard to Sureties to Keep the Peace (section 810 of the Criminal Code of Canada). We describe how this protection order is regularly used in Montreal, not as a precaution when there are no live proceedings, but as a measure following a decision to free the accused from the charges laid against him or to acquit. The data hereby presented comes from a study conducted on the discontinuance of legal criminal actions in incidents of spousal abuse, which was conducted in Montreal in 2002. We interviewed twenty-two professionals involved in the criminal judicial treatment of these cases, especially six judges, seven prosecutors, four defence lawyers, and five interveners from the Côté cour services. We concluded from the interviews that section 810 of the Canadian criminal code is often used in judicial incidents of spousal abuse, and that in general, these intervenors like to have access to this order, which allows them to keep monitoring the accused for a period of up to twelve months. That said, this measure is not considered as a universal cure, coming as it does with disadvantages, especially for the accused and the victims.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".