Perspective Luhmannienne sur l’interaction entre droit et psychiatrie : théorisation de deux modèles dans le contexte particulier de l’expertise psychiatrique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’expertise psychiatrique est requise au tribunal dans plusieurs situations juridiques tant en matiere criminelle que civile et elle est soumise aux memes regles de preuve que n’importe quelle expertise. Pourtant, la psychiatrie et son objet sont tout a fait particuliers. La relation que peuvent entretenir le juge et l’expert-psychiatre est teintee par plusieurs elements de nature sociale et professionnelle, mais aussi simplement juridique et procedurale. Alors que les juristes parlent de cette relation comme d’une usurpation du role du juge par l’expert-psychiatre, les psychiatres, au contraire, croient que leur expertise est totalement pervertie dans le processus judiciaire. Mais la realite n’est pourtant pas univoque: si l’expertise psychiatrique est de facon generale une preuve parmi les autres, elle peut egalement occuper une place centrale dans le mecanisme decisionnel.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".