MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114914552 · doi:10.4000/15c8v

Enjeux, débats et perspectives féministes intersectionnelles et décoloniales sur l’inscription du féminicide au Code criminel canadien

2025· article· W7114914552 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueChamp pénal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode (set theory)Inclusion (mineral)Criminal codePoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article examine la criminalisation du féminicide au Canada, un crime absent dans le Code criminel canadien, afin d’évaluer les arguments pour et contre son inclusion comme infraction distincte. Grâce à une analyse documentaire des prises de position de divers acteurs, nous explorons les avantages d’une telle inscription, tels que la dissuasion et la sensibilisation, tout en abordant les critiques sur son inefficacité présumée dans d’autres juridictions et l’absence d’une approche proactive. L’article conclut qu’intégrer le féminicide au Code criminel pourrait renforcer la protection juridique des victimes de violence basée sur le genre au Canada.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChamp pénalSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207