MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W583895045 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1043

The Meaning of Compensation in Institutional Abuse Programs

2002· article· en· W583895045 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seetal Sunga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Compensation (psychology)PsychologySocial psychologyBusinessPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RItsUMItLes cas de mauvais traitements en 6tablissement comportent un pr6judice personnel A la fois sur le plan psychologique et sur le plan physique.La violence physique et la violence sexuelle ont une incidence sur le sens qu'a une personne d'elle-meme, sur son sens d'int6grit6 et sur son sens de capacit6 ou de pouvoir d'exister comme une personne distincte de l'agresseur.En plus des autres d6fis qu'elles posent, les demandes fond6es sur des mauvais traitements sont difficiles A examiner dans le cadre d'un processus judiciaire ou non judiciaire, car toute tentative d'6tudier les pr6judices de base qui r6sultent du mauvais traitement doit essayer de r6pondre A la nature tr~s personnelle des pr6judices caus6s par les mauvais traitements et qui ne se traduisent pas facilement en une valeur mon6taire.... is power always in a subordinate position relative to the economy?Is it always in the service of, and ultimately answerable to, the economy?Is its essential end and purpose to serve the economy?Is it destined to realise, consolidate, maintain and reproduce the relations appropriate to the economy and essential to its functioning?... is power modelled upon the economy?'

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207