Organisations environnementales et services écosystémiques : stratégies de diffusion du concept et opportunités politiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article interroge le rôle des organisations environnementales dans la diffusion rapide de la notion de « services écosystémiques » en France. À partir de quatre ONG environnementales, l’Union Internationale de Conservation de la Nature, France Nature Environnement, la Fondation Nicolas Hulot et le World Wildlife Fund, l’enquête montre d’abord comment une certaine répartition des tâches entre les organisations environnementales a pu faciliter la diffusion rapide de l’approche systémique promue par les services écosystémiques. À l’interface entre le monde scientifique, le monde de l’entreprise et les instances décisionnelles, les ONG semblent avoir été des acteurs clés de la diffusion de la notion. Le propos analyse ensuite de quelle façon la notion leur permet de renouveler en profondeur leurs approches et leurs activités militantes, et offre de nouvelles opportunités. Enfin, l’article examine le rôle joué par les ONG dans le cas particulier des questions agricoles.
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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".