LE PARTICULARISME JURIDIQUE DE LA REPRESSION DE LA CRIMINALITE ORGANISEE AU CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organized crime has inherited an atypical legal framework : unique offences with an elusive morphology, the unorthodox attribution of vicarious liability, the suppression of certain exculpatory lines of defence and even a broader definition for classic types of incrimination. This differentiated legal framework is dedicated to amplifying the criminal liability reserved for criminal organizations and their henchmen. Added to this expanded liability are exceptional investigative methods and a penological interventionism that are the expression of the phenomenon of eroding judicial discretion. This paper attempts to identify the basic characteristics of this fundamental restructuring of criminal liability. Its remarkable characteristics include the considerable forestalling of the repressive phase; the advent of liability that has become primarily collective; a turning away from classic concepts like complicity and causation in favour of a weakening of the elements of the offences; and a wider net for those this unusual framework is aimed at. Current provisions of the Code actually penalize the mere fact of making oneself available for a potential collective crime. However, the increase in criminal liability in the case of collective illegal acts is not without its bounds. This paper also identifies the criteria designed to better circumscribe the increased liability of those involved in a crooked scheme. With the aid of terms such as “recklessness,” “degree of involvement” and “degree of moral culpability,” the authors recommend that the moral turpitude displayed by the accused mirror the exact nature of the crime for which a conviction is entered : sharing in the deed does not necessarily suffice to incur shared liability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".