Le juge et la victime dans le cadre du processus de détermination de la peine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le présent article, les auteurs ont voulu mieux connaître le point de vue des juges canadiens quant au rôle et à l’incidence de la déclaration des victimes d’actes criminels concernant le processus décisionnel de la détermination de la peine (sentencing). De plus en plus engagées dans ce processus, les victimes exercent-elles une influence en la matière ? Contribuent-elles au durcissement du régime des peines au Canada ? Quels avantages et désavantages les juges attribuent-ils à ce rapprochement victimaire ? Autant de questions qui ont été explorées à travers des entretiens qualitatifs réalisés auprès de magistrats canadiens. Les résultats obtenus laissent entrevoir certains risques certes, mais ils permettent en général de conclure en faveur d’un encadrement plutôt strict qui ne menace ni l’indépendance judiciaire ni les garanties juridiques du justiciable.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".