Les négociations des plaidoyers de culpabilité : la pratique des avocats de la défense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente étude cherche à décrire et à comprendre les pratiques professionnelles des avocats de la défense lors des négociations des plaidoyers de culpabilité, phénomène très courant bien qu’encore trop peu connu. Nous nous sommes intéressées auxpropos de douze avocats de la défense travaillant au Palais de Justice de Montréal. Nos analyses mettent en évidence différents éléments liés à la cause, à l’accusé ou aux considérations professionnelles des avocats qui peuvent avoir une influence sur le déroulement des négociations, mais surtout, elles montrent comment ces éléments peuvent être interprétés différemment selon les avocats et les cas qu’ils défendent. De plus, le discours des avocats sur le déroulement des négociations laisse entrevoir des pratiques différentes entre eux, selon leurs niveaux d’implication (dans le dossier, dans leurs relations…).
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".