MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025502048 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.15811

Perception des risques de submersion marine et capacité d’adaptation des populations littorales

2015· article· fr· W2025502048 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCruise Tourism Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSubmersion (mathematics)Political scienceGeographyArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it