La fabrication sous tension de rapports judiciaires : le cas de l’évaluation socio-pénale des mineurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Québec, le rapport prédécisionnel est un outil d’évaluation qui permet d’éclairer la magistrature avant qu’une peine ne soit ordonnée à l’égard d’un mineur déclaré coupable d’un acte infractionnel. Au Québec, les artisans de ces rapports sont des intervenants sociaux. Cet article discute de la confection des rapports prédécisionnels qui se situe au confluent de deux logiques d’action antagonistes. L’une est portée par des stratégies organisationnelles d’uniformisation des rapports prédécisionnels et l’autre par des contraintes contextuelles pesant sur leurs auteurs. L’affrontement de ces logiques génère des signaux discordants chez les « artisans » de ces rapports, pouvant culminer en une tension non discutée. En réponse à cette tension, les intervenants-artisans tenteront des réconciliations ouvrant la voie à une pratique créative.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".