Le pardon de la victime de violence sexuelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La question du pardon a toujours été controversée dans le domaine de la victimologie, d’autant plus lorsque l’on fait référence au pardon de la personne victime d’agression sexuelle. Pourtant, 15 des 18 personnes victimes de violence sexuelle ont abordé spontanément la notion du pardon ou des excuses lors d’une entrevue qualitative visant à connaître leur expérience de la justice réparatrice. Cette étude a donc exploré la signification du pardon pour ces victimes. Les résultats indiquent que le pardon est surtout induit par une rencontre de dialogue, notamment lorsque l’auteur d’un crime à caractère sexuel reconnaît sa responsabilité et offre des excuses à la victime. Les personnes victimisées ne perçoivent pas le pardon comme une offre à l’agresseur, surtout que la grande majorité d’entre elles ont rencontré un auteur de crime sexuel substitut au leur. Les personnes victimes de violence sexuelle affirment que leur pardon est d’abord dirigé envers elle-même, comme une dimension de leur rétablissement.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".