MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613951289

The Tort of Torture (Le Délit De Torture)

2009· article· fr· W2613951289 on OpenAlexaffabout
François Larocque

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortureHumanitiesPolitical scienceTortLawPhilosophyHuman rightsLiability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French Abstract: Cet article propose la reconnaissance juridique d’un nouveau delit de torture en common law. Plus specifiquement, l’auteur propose la creation d’une nouvelle cause d’action en droit des delits, basee en partie sur la definition internationale de la prohibition de la torture et sous une nouvelle forme d’entree sans autorisation. De facon alternative, ce delit est fonde sur le delit bien etabli de faute dans l’exercice d’une charge publique. Un tel developpement aurait non seulement l’effet favorable de fournir un cadre analytique pour les poursuites civiles relatives a la torture, mais permettrait egalement aux plaideurs et a la cour d’adresser les specificites normatives de la torture selon leurs propres termes, au lieu d’etre contraint par analogie a des categories existantes telles que les voies de faits. L’auteur avance que historique de la repulsion de la common law en matiere de torture de meme que la prohibition peremptoire de la torture en droit international invite la creation d’une cause d’action distincte en responsabilite civile. Il est concevable qu’un nouveau delit de torture, inspire du delit de faute dans l’exercice d’une charge publique, puisse permettre aux tribunaux canadiens d’avoir une meilleure comprehension de l’immunite etatique. Cela pourrait meme donner lieu a une nouvelle approche en matiere de la Loi sur l’immunite des Etats au Canada. English Abstract: This article proposes the judicial recognition of a new nominate tort of torture at common law. More specifically, it calls for the creation of a new cause of action in tort based in part on the internationally defined prohibition of torture and on a novel form of trespass or, alternatively, on the well-established tort of misfeasance in public office. Such a development would not only have the benefit of providing an analytical framework for civil actions with respect to torture, but would also allow litigants and courts to squarely address the normative specificities of torture on their own terms, rather than by forced analogy to existing categories, such as assault and battery. It is argued that the common law’s historical revulsion from torture as well as the peremptory prohibition of torture at international law compel the fashioning of a correspondingly distinct cause of action for the purpose of civil liability. It is also conceivable that a new misfeasance-inspired tort of torture might profitably recast the state immunity issue in more familiar terms for domestic courts, thereby perhaps allowing a fresh approach to the State Immunity Act in Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicTorture, Ethics, and LawFrench-language works237,207