À propos des illégalismes privilégiés. Réflexions conceptuelles et mise en contexte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resolution of conflicts in a society can be seen as a complex network of interactions between various relatively autonomous official control systems. The place occupied by the criminal law as well as its role within this network are larg e -ly determined by the nature of its relations with the other control systems. Based on these theoretical premises, developed in recent socio-juridical studies, this article advances a number of conceptual proposals aimed at clarifying a question that has been the subject of theoretical and political controversy in the field of criminology for about half a century. It is the question of the exclusion, total or partial, of certain particular forms of illegalities from penal intervention. The principal characteristic of these illegalities lies in the fact that they have a broad range of forms of control (civil, administrative proceedings and particularly amicable arrangements). The control of illicit activities in five areas of social life examined in the second part of the study (the business world, public administration, public health, the environment and health and safety in the workplace) show this characteristic very clearly. In conclusion, the author advances a number of arguments that tend to illustrate the profoundly illusory nature of any attempt at control of the above-mentioned illicit activities by intervention of the criminal law.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".