Perspectives traditionnelles et perspectives critiques en criminologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is critical criminology “passée”? Have its fathers, the British and American sociologists who wrote Critical Criminology in the mid seventies exhaust its potential interest and flavour? It would be too bad because critical criminology never really took place. There never was a serious and rigorous attempt at unfolding the historical, epistemological, socio-political roots of the discipline, a critical look at it that took nothing for granted. Reminding the readers of the very serious and highly publicised debate around Traditional and Critical Theory in the late thirties launched by the sociologists and philosophers of the Frankfurt School, the author shows that, far from being outdated, critical theory is of the utmost practicality in criminology, even more so because its founding fathers have taken, since, a less partisan and doctrinaire view of it. The applications of their intellectual and socio-political orientations to criminology are numerous, calling for a serious socio-historical analysis of the discipline and of its academic origins that should throw light on where it is going and its impotence at developing a paradigm.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".