L’encadrement juridique de la violence conjugale : étude comparée France – Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire vise à analyser la réponse juridique apportée aux violences conjugales en France et au Québec. Nous nous attachons à analyser leur encadrement en France et au Québec, en mettant en évidence la manière dont elles sont définies et sanctionnées dans les cadres législatifs. Cette étude s’intéresse également à comparer les mesures de protection offertes aux victimes, des ordonnances de protection françaises aux tribunaux spécialisés récemment mis en place au Québec. Cette comparaison vient souligner l’importance d’une approche globale combinant prévention, protection des victimes et répression des auteurs de violence. Ce mémoire s’articule en deux parties : la première est consacrée à l’évolution de l’encadrement de la notion de violence conjugale, puis à la définition des violences conjugales dans la loi française et canadienne-québécoise, la seconde partie se concentre sur les mesures de protection mises en place et sur la question du meurtre du conjoint.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".