Le Comité européen de prévention de la torture: Mécanisme de contrôle des établissements de détention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En Europe, la question du contrôle des établissements de détention se pose de façon d'autant plus accrue que les locaux sont vétustes et en proie à une importante surpopulation. Depuis 1987, un mécanisme original de prévention de la torture et des mauvais traitements des détenus, le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) effectue des visites des lieux de détention et formule des recommandations aux États concernés. En donnant quelques exemples concrets (notamment du cas français), cet article examine comment le CPT exerce sa mission de contrôle, crée des normes pénitentiaires et exerce une influence sur les pratiques pénitentiaires européennes. L'analyse réalisée permet de soutenir que le CPT constitue, de nos jours, un outil pertinent et un exemple à suivre pour améliorer les conditions de détention et protéger les droits des prisonniers.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".