MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032566949 · doi:10.3917/popu.804.0711

The Distribution of Environmental Risks: Analytical Methods and French Data

2009· article· fr· W2032566949 on OpenAlex
Lucie Laurian

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenuePopulation (English Edition) · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les risques sanitaires liés à l’environnement commencent à être reconnus en France. Le ministère chargé de l’Écologie et du Développement durable estime que 30 000 décès prématurés par an et 7 % à 20 % des cancers seraient liés à des facteurs environnementaux, comme les pollutions de sources diffuses (transports, utilisation de pesticides) et localisées (incinérateurs, décharges, sites industriels). Des inégalités sociales en matière d’exposition aux risques environnementaux ont été observées dans de nombreux pays industrialisés (États-Unis, Canada, Royaume-Uni, Pays-Bas, Allemagne). La question se pose donc aussi pour la France : sommes-nous égaux devant la pollution ou bien les populations les plus démunies sont-elles aussi les plus exposées ? Cet article présente un état des savoirs méthodologiques et analytiques sur la distribution sociale des risques environnementaux afin d’alimenter la recherche sur ce sujet en France.

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)0.001
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 score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.330 · 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