La détention provisoire au Québec : éléments de connaissance et propositions de réflexions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a long time, it has been argued that pre-trial detention should be used with moderation, only in those occasions where no other means seems sufficient to insure the presence of the suspect at his trial or to warrant the security of the public during the duration of the criminal proceedings. Looking at the official statistics reported by the author, one could easily conclude that, in Canada, the pre-trial detention is still largely used. By following a cohort of 1792 suspects from the moment they were apprehended by the MUC police agents in 1989, till the end of Court procedures, the author identifies the characteristics of the suspects who were maintained in pre-trial detention in comparison to the ones that were not submitted to this measure. Further, the author addresses the controversial question of the consequences of pre-trial detention on penal issues. In conclusion the author raises the question if it could be possible to develop other ways of dealing with what she defines as the perceived risk that a suspect tries escape trial or continues to cause harm to the society during the trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".