MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093137011 · doi:10.4000/appareil.1329

Geste, geste punitif et institution judiciaire

2011· article· fr· W2093137011 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAppareil · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À l’aube du nouveau millénaire, se sont développées, notamment en France, à la suite d’expériences menées en particulier aux États-Unis, au Canada et en Suède, de nouvelles technologies du pouvoir punitif. Ces technologies, qui se traduisent par des dispositifs de contrôle inédits, à savoir précisément la surveillance électronique, apparaissent, de par la place importante qu’elles occupent dans le champ des pénalités et de par l’investissement intensif des pouvoirs publics qu’elles commandent aujourd’hui, comme ne devant désormais rencontrer aucun frein. Dès lors, c’est de tenter de circonscrire ici le principe organisationnel et fonctionnel inauguré par ces nouvelles technologies d’enfermement, puissamment dopées à l’électronique, que se propose cet article, et ce à travers la mise à plat d’éléments de réflexion sur la structure d’un des gestes punitifs contemporains des plus audacieux, des plus « renversants », et des plus malheureux sur le plan de la qualité et du sens de la prise en charge des condamnés.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.457
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.002 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it