Perception des risques de submersion marine et capacité d’adaptation des populations littorales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d’une enquête réalisée en 2009 et portant sur la perception des risques de submersion marine par les usagers et résidents de trois communes du littoral languedocien. En termes de lutte contre l’érosion des plages, les réponses se partagent entre méthodes souples et ouvrages « en dur ». Seuls 15 % des résidents se déclarent en faveur du laisser-faire ou du retrait stratégique. En effet, ces populations, principales et surtout secondaires, sont fortement attachées au territoire sur lequel elles vivent. Au contraire, touristes et excursionnistes, qui seraient moins directement affectés par ces mesures, leur sont plus favorables (respectivement 25,5 % et 48 %). Ces résultats renseignent sur les capacités et modes d’adaptation souhaités des différentes populations et apportent des éléments indispensables à la définition des politiques publiques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".