Positions du milieu des affaires face au développement durable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé L’institutionnalisation du développement durable interpelle un nombre croissant de gestionnaires, préoccupés notamment par les incidences socioéconomiques de la mise en place de nouvelles politiques et de nouveaux règlements dans ce domaine. Au Québec, la consultation publique sur l’avant-projet de loi sur le développement durable en 2005 a suscité l’intérêt de centaines d’organisations et d’individus. Parmi eux, 69 entreprises et regroupements d’affaires ont réagi à cette initiative gouvernementale. L’analyse de ces réactions montre que le milieu des affaires présente quatre grandes positions face à l’encadrement législatif du développement durable : les adeptes proactifs, les suiveurs contingents, les passifs indifférents et les opposants déclarés. L’article indique les tenants et aboutissants de ces positions, ainsi que leurs implications pratiques pour les gestionnaires et pour les gouvernements.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".