MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250441697 · doi:10.7202/017363ar

De la prison à l’école de bienfaisance. Origines et transformations des institutions pénitentiaires pour enfants en Belgique au XIXe siècle (1840-1914)

2005· article· en· W4250441697 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie‐Sylvie Dupont‐Bouchat

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunishment (psychology)ParliamentPrisonHumanitiesCriminologyScope (computer science)SociologyJuvenile delinquencyPolitical sciencePsychologyEthnologyLawSocial psychologyArtPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The creation and evolution of juvenile institutions in 19th century Belgium corresponds to two approaches, two eras and two reformers (Edouard Ducpétiaux and Jules LeJeune). The first fifty years are dominated by the idea of guilty children, who should be condemned and incarcerated in penitentiaries to be punished and reformed. Then, the image of children in danger who should be protected against the bad influences of their families becomes dominant. The passage from punishment to protection involves the adoption of social and psychological criteria to classify children along new categories. The scope of the institutions is being widened as their mission becomes centered on all types of children "in danger". As institutions become challenged, family placements become more popular and are intended to compensate for the weaknesses and bad influences of the natural family. The legal withdrawal of parental authority (endorsed by Parliament in 1912) is aimed at controlling families of deprived classes of society. The adoption of the medical model for juvenile delinquents becomes a reality with the opening of psychological observation centres in the Écoles de bienfaisance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicMigration, Identity, and HealthFrench-language works237,207