Étude comparative des programmes canadiens de mesures de rechange ou comment favoriser le désengorgement des tribunaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les mesures de rechange permettent de répondre à la commission d’une infraction sans recourir au système de justice criminelle. Dès 1996, le législateur fédéral a autorisé les provinces à adopter des programmes de mesures de rechange, dans le but de réserver le recours au système judiciaire aux infractions sérieuses et de désengorger les tribunaux. Pourtant, certains des programmes mis en place sont très restrictifs et rendent difficile l’atteinte de cet objectif. La présente étude dresse un portrait rigoureux et systématique des programmes de mesures de rechange offerts dans les différentes provinces canadiennes et analyse leur capacité à réduire le volume du contentieux judiciaire. Le législateur fédéral a conféré une marge de manoeuvre importante aux provinces à cet égard. En comparant les conditions d’admissibilité à ces programmes au regard des infractions commises, des caractéristiques des contrevenants et des procédures utilisées, l’étude met en lumière la timidité du Programme de mesures de rechange général récemment instauré par le législateur québécois.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".