Intervention politique dans la sentence du droit ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".