Le rôle de l'État dans l'élaboration des choix énergétiques et le rôle plus spécifique des différentes institutions publiques en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper surveys the role of the key governmental institutions in the making of energy policy in France. It shows that in spite of fairly extensive debate of the issues in both chambers of the French National Assembly since the mid-1970s, members of parliament have so far failed to make a significant impact on decision-making in the field of energy. Part of this is due to the strength of the Cabinet's influence over the National Assembly, and to its constitutional position as policy-maker. Moreover, in spite of a vast array of departmental branches and associated agencies directly under ministerial authority, the government's power may have been more formal than real. Much of the actual decision-making is made by experts employed by the large State or privately-owned corporations. This extensive network of closely connected energy-producing corporations appears to have been, and to remain, the real seat of power, in spite of recurrent hopes for, and attempts at, democratization.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".