Mort en sursis: processus décisionnels dans l'attribution de la Prérogative Royale pour les condamnés québécois, 1895-1959
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À travers l’étude de trente-deux condamnations à mort prononcées au Québec entre 1895 et 1959, l’auteur retrace le processus qui menait aux délibérations quant à l’octroi de la Prérogative Royale de clémence par le Cabinet fédéral. En se basant sur les dossiers compilés par le ministère fédéral de la Justice et conservés dans le Fonds des condamnés à mort des Archives nationales du Canada, il a été possible de dégager la participation de nombreux acteurs dans l’exercice de la peine capitale et de la clémence. Parmi eux, trois acteurs – le jury, le juge de première instance et les bureaucrates du Ministère de la Justice chargés de la constitution des dossiers – étaient conviés à offrir une recommandation à la clémence, qui était généralement respectée par l’exécutif.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".