Parole de l’accusé, paroles sur l’accusé : réflexivité et subjectivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En France et en Belgique, la parole des accusés pour faits de terrorisme est précieuse et fondamentale dans le cadre de procès équitables. Il est fréquent que les auteurs d’attentats terroristes ne soient plus là pour s’exprimer devant la cour d’assises et, lorsqu’ils sont en vie, il est fréquent qu’ils obéissent aux recommandations de l’État islamique et qu’ils gardent le silence. À travers l’étude de deux procès d’attentats terroristes, l’auteure analyse les conditions de production de la parole de deux accusés et les effets des discours les concernant par des experts, avocats et témoins. Aujourd’hui, la vérité judiciaire ne se suffit plus de l’aveu, mais se construit à partir de discours réflexifs sur l’accusé et sur sa parole. L’auteure cherche à comprendre comment cette parole est produite, comment elle réagit et interagit avec d’autres paroles et quels sont les effets produits sur les accusés.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".