Bibliographic record
Abstract
La spécificité des problèmes d’environnement les rend difficilement gouvernables par le recours aux formes de l’action publique standard. La transgression des échelles politiques traditionnelles, la trans-sectorialité des problèmes et la désynchronisation des impacts vis-à-vis à des temporalités des activités humaines ont conduit à l’émergence de politiques de co-responsabilité (interterritoriales, intersectorielles, intergénérationnelles). Cette tendance s’affirme au travers de politiques qui renforcent des interdépendances explicites entre des territoires, qui imaginent des dispositifs de responsabilisation visant à « faire rendre des comptes » et qui font porter une part croissante de la régulation des problèmes collectifs d’environnement sur les changements de pratiques sociales individuelles (consommer autrement, se déplacer autrement, etc.). Ce texte expose ces trois mécanismes de responsabilisation caractéristiques de la gouvernance de l’environnement contemporaine et interroge leur portée et leur limite.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".