Changer les lois, les idées, les pratiques: Réflexions sur l'échec de la réforme de la détermination de la peine (Changing Laws, Ideas and Practices: An Essay on the (Failed) Sentencing Reform)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article propose une explication pour l’echec de la recente reforme de la determination de la peine. Il souligne d’abord des deficiences graves dans les sources formelles du droit qui pretendaient l’instituer, tant sur le plan des textes legislatifs et de leur interpretation que sur celui de leurs assises philosophiques et doctrinales. Cependant, au-dela des contradictions et des incoherences qui affligent les sources formelles, le droit de la peine et de sa determination comporte une composante etonnamment complexe de regles systemiques et de pratiques, generee par les acteurs pour resoudre les tensions internes du systeme de justice penal. L’incapacite des reformateurs de comprendre la signification de cette composante et d’en tenir compte dans le projet de reforme vouait cette derniere a l’echec.English Abstract: This article seeks to explain the failure of the recent attempt at sentencing reform. First, the authors point out the major deficiencies in the formal sources of law that sought to implement it : the legislation and its interpretation, as well as their philosophical and doctrinal underpinnings. Secondly, the authors look beyond the contradictions and inconsistencies of the formal sources to consider the vast array of systemic rules and informal practices that are generated by the various actors of the criminal justice system in response to its internal tensions. The authors argue that it is the inability of the reformers to understand the significance of this component and to include it in he reform that ultimately doomed the whole endeavour.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".