MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399411143 · doi:10.25145/j.cedille.2024.25.08

Les termes prévenu et accusé en droit pénal français, canadien et suisse et leurs équivalents roumains

2024· article· en· W4399411143 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueÇédille · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
Topiclinguistics and terminology studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)SuspectHumanitiesCriminal codeRomanianCode (set theory)SociologyLawPolitical scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyCriminal lawSet (abstract data type)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In French criminal law, the various procedural statuses of (alledged) offenders are highly nuanced: suspect, témoin, témoin assisté, mis en examen, prévenu, accusé , etc. The concepts operationalised in this respect in the codes (Code pénal and Code de procédure pénale in partic ular) are not systematically defined, but the oppositions that structure this terminological field can easily be approached with the help of contexts and cotexts (the study of collocations proves very promising in this respect). The same is true of the opposition that is the focus of our research (prévenu vs. accusé). e two notions are culturally marked: our study will explore the differences in use (and therefore in conceptualisation / designation) of the two terms in French, Swiss and Canadian criminal law, while evoking the intercultural Romanian equivalents of the terminological system from which they derive.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.209 · 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