La performance énergétique des bâtiments à l’ère des politiques européennes de démonstration. Le cas du programme CONCERTO et du projet de la ZAC De Bonne (Grenoble, France)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce papier propose d’explorer l’articulation au secteur du bâtiment de l’approche par la démonstration issue de politiques européennes d’innovation technologique, en prenant pour cela le cas du programme européen CONCERTO et de l’expérience française de la ZAC de Bonne à Grenoble. Après avoir resitué les enjeux conceptuels qui sous-tendent l’analyse des pratiques de démonstration (i), cet article donne des éléments de contexte relatifs à la Stratégie de Lisbonne et détaille les ambitions du programme européen CONCERTO (ii), puis il analyse le projet de la ZAC De Bonne en prêtant attention aux dynamiques scalaires européennes, locales et nationales (iii), avant d’ouvrir une discussion sur le rapport au temps des politiques de démonstration et leurs effets contradictoires en termes de diffusion des apprentissages (iv).
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".