La participation de l’enfant à la justice juvénile : les apports de l’approche restauratrice à l’épreuve des politiques pénales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article part du constat de l’inefficacité des sanctions punitives appliquées aux enfants ayant commis des infractions et de leurs conséquences négatives quant à leur responsabilisation et leur développement. Il propose, à l’aide de l’approche restauratrice, de responsabiliser davantage l’enfant en conflit avec la loi à travers sa participation active au processus judiciaire. Participation qui permettrait ainsi la manifestation de ses intérêts, en accord avec les directives du droit international, et lui éviterait les séquelles que peut causer un système de justice répressif. En premier lieu, un rappel historique évoque le monopole de l’État en matière de justice pénale, réaffirme l’importance de l’existence d’une justice différenciée pour les mineurs et met en lumière les limites du droit international. Dans un second temps, l’émergence et les apports de l’approche restauratrice sont abordés, avant de s’intéresser à leur application dans un cadre de justice juvénile, et aux avantages d’une participation de l’enfant.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".