La justice et les victimes : l’importance de l’information pour les victimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis les années 1980, les gouvernements occidentaux, incluant celui du Québec, ont travaillé à améliorer la condition des victimes d’actes criminels. Les droits fondamentaux des victimes tels que les droits à l’information, à la réparation et à la protection ont été entérinés par des lois. De plus, en droit international, la nouvelle Cour pénale internationale accorde aux victimes le droit de participer aux procédures ainsi que le droit de demander réparation. Malgré ces innovations, nous continuons aujourd’hui d’entendre des plaidoyers en faveur des victimes pour que justice leur soit rendue. Ce débat public soulève la question suivante : à quel moment les victimes croient-elles que justice est rendue et quels facteurs influencent cette perception ? Dans cet article, nous présentons une recherche sur les perceptions qu’ont les victimes d’actes criminels de la justice et nous étudions l’impact de l’information sur leur perception de la justice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".