Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette contribution cherche à bousculer le postulat transformateur véhiculé à l’unisson par les adeptes du modèle réparateur, sans toutefois, comme nous le verrons, le rejeter. L’unité du modèle réparateur consacrée dans les textes fondateurs étant aujourd’hui dénoncée de manière quasi unanime, il est nécessaire de retracer et qualifier les principales ramifications du mouvement réparateur afin d’être mieux en mesure d’en interroger le caractère innovant dans le champ sociopénal. La conclusion à laquelle nous parvenons est la suivante : la justice réparatrice est une innovation mais son effet innovant sur le système pénal est relatif et variable. Cet effet dépend d’abord de la manière de concevoir la justice réparatrice, ensuite de la place et la fonction de celle-ci par rapport au pénal. Nous distinguons deux types d’innovations : les innovations complémentaires et les innovations de substitution. Seules les innovations de substitution parviennent à générer un changement.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".