Entre oralité et écriture, entre acquiescements, silences, grondements ou éruptions. L'écriture des sentences criminelles de la cour des capitouls au xviiie siècle et leur réception par les accusés et condamnés toulousains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’épisode de Jean Auriol, condamné en 1756 à dix ans de galères et révolté contre sa sentence, sert de point de départ à une étude du fonctionnement judiciaire des capitouls de Toulouse au XVIIIᵉ siècle. Les archives révèlent la tension entre l’écrit officiel et l’oralité du procès, où les greffiers, juges et accusés laissent entrevoir leurs individualités. Le procès suit un rituel précis : conclusions du procureur, dernier interrogatoire souvent symbolique, puis délibération et rédaction de la sentence. Les décisions résultent de discussions parfois vives entre magistrats avant d’être formalisées par le greffier. Celui-ci, loin d’être neutre, reformule et traduit les paroles des accusés. Enfin, la sentence est proclamée publiquement, marquant la conclusion d’une justice à la fois codifiée, humaine et imparfaite.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".