Violences sexuelles et droit pénal : perspectives franco-canadiennes Sexual violence and penal law: Franco-Canadian perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La visibilité des luttes contre les violences sexuelles envers les femmes et les enfants s’est accrue ces dernières années. En particulier, depuis le mouvement #MeToo, la multiplicité des violences sexuelles dont les femmes sont victimes fait l’objet de mobilisations collectives, de contestations et de préoccupations sociales intenses. La question du consentement à l’acte sexuel y occupe une place centrale. La réponse des pouvoirs publics à ces préoccupations se formule notamment dans les termes du droit pénal et de son application. C’est cette réponse pénale, dans les contextes français et canadien, qui fait l’objet de la présente journée d’études. Quels sont l’état du droit et des pratiques judiciaires, et à quels écueils se heurtent-ils ? Le consentement sexuel est-il, et peut-il être, un critère légal opératoire dans les pratiques ? In fine, la réponse pénale contemporaine est-elle un instrument adapté pour lutter contre les violences sexuelles ?
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
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.
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".