La pratique du profilage au crible de la recherche scientifique : notice bibliographique sur la littérature criminologique de langue anglaise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette notice bibliographique examine les récents développements de la littérature scientifique anglophone sur le profilage criminel. Dans une perspective comparative, l’analyse de scène de crime, la psychologie d’investigation, et l’évaluation diagnostique sont étudiées. La cécité commu-nicationelle, un problème rencontré lors des enquêtes sérielles, est expliquée, ainsi que les solutions proposées par trois différents systèmes policiers, le Programme d’appréhension des criminels violents, du FBI, le Système de mise en relation des crimes violents, de la police montée royale canadienne, et l’Organisation du ministère de l’Intérieur pour les enquêtes de grande envergure, au Royaume-Uni. Les problèmes de scientificité, validité, et fiabilité de la technique du profilage, ainsi que l’expertise des profileurs sont soulignés, amenant le développement de questions éthiques.
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 | 0.028 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".