La gouvernance plurinormative des manifestants : reconfigurations pénales, exceptionnalité et dégradation des droits pendant le G20 à Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article analyse la création, l’adaptation et l’utilisation des dispositifs juridiques employés dans le contrôle des manifestants pendant le G20 à Toronto (2010), notamment le recours à un régime spécial basé sur la Loi sur la protection des ouvrages publics (LPOP). Le recours à une loi obscure de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et le peu de transparence gouvernementale sur les lois applicables aux manifestants ont créé des conditions favorables à la plus intense arrestation de masse de l’histoire canadienne (1 118 personnes en deux jours). Nous suggérons que nous assistons à un développement soutenu de nouvelles formes de gouvernance punitive qui opèrent au-delà du droit pénal, à la limite de l’état de droit (« trous juridiques ») et des garanties juridiques traditionnellement associées au procès criminel. Nous concluons que l’utilisation de ces raccourcis punitifs est juridiquement dangereuse et a pour effet systémique de concentrer beaucoup de pouvoir dans les institutions policières.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".