MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402182563 · doi:10.3138/cjwl.00-00-1-3-x

Le stéréotype de la « bonne grand-mère » comme facteur de clémence des tribunaux : analyse des biais de genre à l’épreuve de la détermination de la peine chez les femmes aînées

2024· article· fr· W4402182563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valérine Pinel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et Droit · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir d’un cadre théorique féministe, cette recherche exploratoire se penche sur la manière dont les critères appliqués par les tribunaux au moment de la détermination de la peine, pour les femmes aînées accusées, révèlent des stéréotypes genrés. L’analyse de cinquante-neuf décisions de première instance concernant des femmes âgées de plus de cinquante ans condamnées au Québec dans les dix dernières années a révélé l’application de modèles stéréotypés genrés dans plus de la moitié d’entre elles, ce qui crée une dichotomie dans le traitement de ces femmes par les tribunaux. Ainsi, à partir du stéréotype d’une nature non violente, maternelle et sacrificielle de la femme, la « bonne grand-mère » serait traitée avec plus de clémence que la « femme déviante » qui, par la commission d’une infraction, viendrait troubler les schémas genrés dans le cadre d’une société patriarcale, et donc dévier du rôle qui est attendu d’elle, en plus d’enfreindre la loi.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et DroitSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207