La place de la victime dans la justice pénale, approche comparée franco-canadienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a relatively old establishment, it seems that the place of the victim in the criminaljustice system continues to be controversial and seems to be prompt to developments.Indeed, its role oscillates between societal and media expectations, which would almostconsider it as the main actor of criminal prosecutions, and legal forecasts, based on Historyto justify the «substitution» of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to that one, and therebylimiting the victim to the status of witness within of the case. This last position, adopted bythe French and Canadian judicial system, is defended and understood by the foundations ofcriminal justice as we know it. It does not purport to defend the victim, but rather to protectthe structure of society as a whole. However, this ideology seems to be increasinglychallenged because of the emergence of a public demand to reintroduce victims into thecriminal arena, so that they feel fully satisfied with the judicial system. Yet the fullsatisfaction of victims' needs cannot be achieved through the criminal justice system withoutdisrupting its purpose. On the other hand, restorative justice mechanisms are graduallyintegrating the Canadian and then French criminal procedures, and are making it possible tofill these criminal gaps in terms of the needs of victims, in a way that seems more desirablethan a substantial change in the law. In this perspective, the comparative study of theCanadian and French models aims to highlight the mechanisms that could make it possibleto grant status and prerogatives working to meet the needs of the victim.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".