Justice et infra-justice en Nouvelle-France. Les voies de fait à Montréal entre 1700 et 1760
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has become obvious in the past several years that the judicial statistics have certain limitations as far as reconstructing the evolution of crime under the Ancien Régime is concerned. The administrative inadequacies of the institutional justice of that era, its insufficient means of intervention, invite caution, but the existence of infra-judicial mechanisms for dealing with crime lead to the conclusion that only a fraction of the crimes ever came before the courts. Our research on trials for assault and battery heard in the jurisdiction of Montreal between 1700 and 1760 revealed several cases establishing the existence in New France, and confirming the observations of Alfred Somanfor France, of practices according to which the institution of proceedings by certain victims was often in order to start a process of negotiation with the aggressor or force him to come to an agreement out of court, which usually put an end to the procedures. Since there is rarely any explicit mention of agreements reached, even in the notarial archives, we arrived at the possibility that the dropping of legal proceedings indicated an infra-judicial settlement of the case. This led us to analyse the decrease in the number of trials for assault and battery in Montreal after 1730. It was not because of the usual explanation, that it was a sign of a “decrease in crime”, but rather due to a strengthening of the infra-judicial system, particularly in the rural areas, where there was less recourse to the authority of the royal court to settle minor infractions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".