MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102701831 · doi:10.7202/1001771ar

Intervention politique dans la sentence du droit ?

2011· article· fr· W2102701831 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueCriminologie · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMarxism and Critical Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article tente de comprendre une énigme de la société moderne : comment celle-ci en est-elle venue à accepter jusqu’à aujourd’hui certaines formes d’intervention politique dans la sentence du droit ? Ces pratiques sont observées comme une expression de la démocratie et non de l’autoritarisme. Ce travail accorde une attention spéciale à la peine unique, qui ne laisse aucune option aux tribunaux, et à la peine minimale. La première partie explore le concept de peine minimale et présente quatre modèles de structure de peines dans les législations. La deuxième partie distingue entre fondements et faits justificatifs pour trouver les idées qui fondent ces modèles de peines. On peut alors mieux comprendre pourquoi ces interventions politiques sont persistantes et ont plus de probabilités d’être reproduites que délaissées ou abolies. On comprend mieux aussi pourquoi il est peu probable de les observer comme relevant d’une politique autoritaire.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.042 · 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