MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504611383 · doi:10.7202/1036198ar

Le contrôle plurinormatif des gangs de rue

2016· article· fr· W2504611383 on OpenAlexaffvenue
João Velloso

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Edwin Sutherland a été l’un des premiers à remettre en question l’association entre pauvreté et criminalité qui dominait le champ criminologique au début du xxe siècle. Il proposait non seulement que la criminologie étudie les crimes en col blanc (white-collar crimes), mais également que ces études renforcent sa théorie de l’association différentielle en tant que théorie générale, applicable à tous les types de comportements criminels. Dans cet article, nous poursuivons un objectif similaire, mais à propos du contrôle social : nous proposons de réfléchir aux formes les plus visibles de la délinquance, et plus particulièrement à la criminalité de rue, à partir de certaines études sur la réaction sociale à la délinquance des élites. Nous suggérons que la notion d’« illégalismes privilégiés » (Acosta, 1988) est appropriée pour analyser tous les illégalismes. En effet, à l’instar des crimes en col blanc, les crimes de rue sont aussi fréquemment administrés par les institutions juridiques de façon plurinormative, c’est-à-dire en s’appuyant sur différents systèmes normatifs au-delà et en plus de la justice criminelle (par exemple, le droit administratif, le droit civil, etc.). Dans les faits, cette technique a souvent pour effet de punir davantage les délinquants visés, surtout les étrangers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.120 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207