Réflexion sur la criminalisation de l’inceste et ses justifications : au-delà du tabou universel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent texte analyse le crime d’inceste en droit canadien à deux niveaux. Tout d’abord, en s’appuyant sur la législation et la jurisprudence, l’auteure en étudie la définition et les éléments constitutifs afin de bien le saisir. Ensuite, elle s’intéresse aux théories de la criminalisation en considérant les justifications avancées pour soutenir la criminalisation de l’inceste. Pourquoi le criminalise-t-on, notamment entre adultes consentants ? L’acceptabilité de ces justifications, dans le contexte social actuel et compte tenu des droits et libertés, est examinée, de même que l’inadéquation entre le cadre normatif, d’une part, et les justifications avancées pour le soutenir, d’autre part. En particulier, le dégoût comme fondement de la criminalisation et les dangers que cela comporte sont traités. Bref, l’auteure remet en question les contours de l’infraction d’inceste, plus précisément dans son application aux adultes consentants.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".