La participation des citoyens aux choix énergétiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors comment on the capacity of the law to resolve problems concerning public participation in energy questions. Problems of clarity of language and consensus about objects arise in most public debates about energy. Although a particular public participation exercise may be intended to treat issues related to one policy level, questions invariably arise concerning other policy levels, be they strategic or operational. Ideally, the timing of public debate should be determined in function of the ends such debates are expected to serve, but this is difficult because of the diverse functions to be served by participation. As well, the exercise is less clear because of problems of access to and manipulation of information. Nevertheless, impartial decision-making is still perceived as leading to the best results, although the inherent limits of public participation are recognized. In the final analysis, the problems posed by public participation are not ones the law, which is contentious in orientation, can remedy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".