L’aménagement forestier en France : à la recherche d’une gestion durable à travers l’histoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En France, sous l’ancien régime, l’aménagement a été promulgué comme l’outil de référence, définissant les droits mais surtout les interdictions en forêt, planifiant les coupes et les exploitations. Après la révolution de 1789, il devient un instrument de pouvoir d’une administration des Eaux et Forêts puissante qui veut lutter contre les droits d’usage des populations rurales. En utilisant la science et la loi, les forestiers s’opposent aux paysans et déclenchent des révoltes dans les campagnes. Après l’exode rural, les aménagements consacrent dans la seconde moitié du XXème siècle une forêt fonctionnaliste qui doit avant tout produire du bois. Ce n’est qu’à partir des années 1980 que des considérations environnementales sont progressivement prises en compte dans les plans d’aménagement. En revanche, l’intégration des attentes sociales continue de poser problème et constitue l’un des défis majeurs de la foresterie de demain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".