L'enquête publique préalable à la décision comme modèle alternatif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper surveys the present state of French law concerning local inquiries on works projects in the energy sector, such as dams, power plants, transmission lines, etc. This is done in the light of the Democratization of Inquiries Bill, which received first reading in the French National Assembly in April, 1983. The subject is treated from three points of view : the scope of application of the inquiry procedure ; the inquiry process itself ; and its effectiveness as a means towards citizens's involvement in public decisionmaking. As regards the scope of the procedure, the Bill would extend it somewhat beyond the cumulative scope of the several existing types of inquiry. Any project affecting the environment would normally be subjected to be the inquiry procedure. As regards the inquiry process itself the Bill would strengthen the independence of inquiry commissioners in that it gives them broader investigative powers, allows them to hold contradictory public hearings upon request albeit with the agreement of the decision-making authority, and requires them to publish reports, with reasons of each inquiry. As regards the effectiveness of the procedure, the Bill would make it easier for dissatisfied parties to obtain a injunction restraining the implementation of a project if the commissioner had reported against it. On the whole, the Bill seems to promise significant improvements in the inquiry process, particularly as it provides for contradictory debate, including the consideration of alternative proposals. However, it leaves open a number of questions about the real purpose served by the procedure and about the proper timing of the inquiry in the total decision-making process.
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 | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.014 |
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".