La question de la clémence à l'égard de la victime dans le jugement de responsabilité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On tient souvent les victimes en partie responsable de ce qui leur arrive. Afin de comprendre les raisons motivant les individus a les juger comme telles, nous avons manipule quatre facteurs : la cible du jugement de responsabilite ; le caractere asymetrique ou symetrique des informations extra-legales dont on dispose sur les deux protagonistes : la connotation sociale de ces informations ; la clarte de la situation dramatique dans laquelle les deux protagonistes sont impliques. Les resultats obtenus montrent qu'on est generalement moins clement envers la victime qu'envers le tiers. Pour que la victime beneficie d'un traitement indulgent, l'entiere innocence de la victime ne doit susciter aucun doute et cette derniere doit donner l'impression, via l'information extra-legale fournie, qu'elle est digne de ce traitement de faveur. L'ensemble de ces resultats suggere que le traitement reserve aux victimes est donc un phenomene complexe, que est d'ailleurs aujourd'hui reconnu legalement.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".