HISTOIRE DE LA FOLIE EN DROIT PENAL ANGLAIS ET CANADIEN: ANALYSE CONSTRUCTIVISTE DES TROIS GRANDES F
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In criminal law, the construction of the judicial discourse on madness has long been perceived as a random phenomenon and as a process whose conception and application was entirely confined within the hands of the legislator and courts. The goal of this article is to challenge this approach. The research demonstrates that the construction of the judicial discourse on madness in England and Canada is a, process which is closely orientated and organized by mechanisms of control. Indeed, contrary to what we commonly believe, the content of the defence of insanity in England and Canada is not only determined by the legislator and judges, but also and foremost by the values to which the members of these societies adhere. In this regard, the author suggests that there are, historically, three distinct ways of looking at the question of madness in criminal law. These interpretations, which rest upon different sets of values, appear in the imaginary scenery of madness under three different images, namely (1) the insane as a creature midway between man and animal, (2) the insane as a dangerous personage, and finally (3) the insane as a holder of individual rights.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".