Entre développement durable et vivir bien : repères pour un projet politico-pédagogique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C’est dans une perspective éducative, à la recherche de fondements et de stratégies pour une éducation écocitoyenne, que nous abordons deux propositions éthiques qui se retrouvent en toile de fond de politiques publiques contemporaines : celle du développement durable forgée dans la culture de l’Occident du Nord et celle du vivir bien ou buen vivir nourrie au creux des cultures autochtones du Sud. Nous mettrons en contraste les repères ontologiques, cosmologiques, éthiques, culturels et politiques qui balisent ces deux propositions. Une telle caractérisation permet de mettre à distance critique le dogme du développement durable qui s’est installé dans les instances politiques et qui a percolé dans les systèmes d’éducation à l’échelle internationale. Elle permet également de faire ressortir l’apport du vivir bien à la réflexion éthique sur les choix fondamentaux des politiques publiques en éducation.
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 | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".