Portrait de la criminologie québécoise des dix dernières années selon le courant, la méthodologie et l’appartenance institutionnelle des auteurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous avons dressé le portrait général des publications parues au cours des dix dernières années de manière à mettre en exergue comment sont représentés les grands courants de la criminologie au sein la revueCriminologie. L’analyse des 188 publications parues depuis 2008 a permis de constater : 1) qu’on dénombre plus de publications s’inscrivant dans les criminologies traditionnelles que critiques ou zémiologiques ; 2) que les méthodologies quantitatives demeurent privilégiées par les auteurs qui se situent dans les courants traditionnels ; et 3) que cette tendance est encore plus forte chez les doctorants et les professeurs de l’École de criminologie de l’Université de Montréal. Nos analyses permettent donc de conclure à un « effet École de criminologie de Montréal » selon le prisme des parutions parues dans la revueCriminologie.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".