Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article, rédigé dans un contexte de débats sur les fonctions des zoos, a été repris et actualisé au regard des avancées du terrain et des réformes des zoos. Nous interrogeons les discours des zoos sur un aspect crucial, celui de leur légitimation de l’enfermement d’animaux sauvages, et cela en examinant les différents arguments avancés : conservation d’espèces rares, recherche scientifique, éducation du public. Nous discutons également la question de la réintroduction d’animaux en milieu naturel et la pertinence de telles entreprises au regard des multiples échecs subis au fil des années. Nous interrogeons de façon critique les changements de dispositifs d’exposition (de traditionnels en cage aux « naturalistes enrichis ») qui renvoient à de nouveaux modèles de conception et d’administration de la nature. Au final, nous analysons les contradictions majeures entre causes animales et dimensions anthropologiques ou conservatoires, et plus largement, l’asymétrie politique Nord-Sud dont les questions de conservation et d’exposition d’animaux sont de pertinents indicateurs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".