Les controverses socio-techniques et les conflits environnementaux intraitables : deux littératures complémentaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les questions environnementales et techniques occupent une place importante dans la vie publique contemporaine. Ces questions constituent actuellement l'objet d'un grand nombre de controverses socio-techniques et de conflits environnementaux intraitables. En nous basant sur notre recension des ecrits sur les deux phenomenes, nous definissions les deux termes comme des situations sociales ou des acteurs ayant des positions opposees sur une ou plusieurs questions techniques s'engagent dans un processus de deliberation afin de debattre de leurs positions avec les autres acteurs. Les litteratures qui traitent des controverses socio-techniques et des conflits environnementaux intraitables presentent des differences importantes. Cet article explore les differentes manieres dont ces deux litteratures abordent le nombre et le role des acteurs dans ces situations, les aspects positifs et negatifs de ces situations, ainsi que l'utilisation du concept de cadrage pour mieux comprendre ces controverses et conflits. En formulant des pistes de recherche qui combinent des elements de la litterature sur les controverses socio-techniques et de celle sur les conflits environnementaux intraitables, nous preconisons une nouvelle perspective hybride de l'etude ces phenomenes en demontrant en quoi les deux litteratures en question sont complementaires.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".