Les termes prévenu et accusé en droit pénal français, canadien et suisse et leurs équivalents roumains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".