La notion de découplage revisitée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En cette période de négociations commerciales et de réforme des politiques agricoles, le concept de découplage est à l’avant-scène dans les débats sur l’intervention des pouvoirs publics en agriculture. Or, une revue de littérature exhaustive révèle deux flous importants : le premier est l’absence de définition consensuelle dans les écrits économiques scientifiques. Cette première confusion en alimente une seconde : celle entourant l’application du concept économique dans les négociations multilatérales sur le commerce. Cet article propose des précisions sur les frontières relatives au concept de découplage des aides aux revenus en agriculture, ceci à l’aide de la littérature et d’une consultation de type Delphi. Nous concluons que le principe de découplage doit se mesurer en terme d’impact sur la production et non sur la consommation, qu’une approche ex-ante est plus opérationnelle dans la recherche d’une définition. Enfin, le découplage devrait être considéré en termes de degré plutôt qu’en valeur absolue.
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 | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".