La dénonciation, la rétribution et la dissuasion : repenser trois obstacles à l’évolution du droit criminel moderne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans leur article, les auteurs s’appuient sur les thèses d’Alvaro P. Pires pour problématiser trois des principaux obstacles à l’évolution du droit criminel moderne, soit ceux qui découlent respectivement de la dénonciation, de la rétribution et de la dissuasion. Ils proposent de revenir aux théories qui fondent ces objectifs punitifs et de rendre plus visible toute la contingence qui entoure historiquement les choix philosophiques ayant favorisé, pour chacun de ces cas, une conception essentiellement négative, afflictive et souvent « carcéralisante » du droit de punir. Ce retour aux « sources » a ultimement pour objet de mettre en évidence des possibilités de reconstruction aujourd’hui plus positives, moins hostiles et plus sensibles à la préservation des liens sociaux. De telles déconstructions-reconstructions sont ici conçues comme relevant d’opérations fondamentales pour l’avènement d’un droit criminel plus « responsif », capable d’apprentissage et d’autocorrection dans son rapport au crime et à la peine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".