MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071936304 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.15647

Quel rôle des agriculteurs dans la transition énergétique? Acceptation sociale et controverses émergentes à partir de l’exemple d’une chaufferie collective de biomasse en Picardie

2015· article· fr· W2071936304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine Delhoume, Delphine Caroux

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’agriculture a aujourd’hui un rôle à jouer dans le cadre de la transition énergétique. En effet, celle-ci constitue l’un des principaux foyers de biomasse à partir de laquelle des énergies dites renouvelables pour la production de chaleur et d’électricité peuvent émerger. Mais les usages potentiels de la biomasse suscitent des questionnements, et soulèvent la question de l’acceptation sociale de ces nouvelles demandes par les agriculteurs, dans un contexte où les fonctions énergétiques de l’agriculture suscitent des débats et des controverses. L’objet de cet article est de s’interroger sur la façon dont les agriculteurs perçoivent et appréhendent la transition énergétique. Il s’agit ainsi de proposer des pistes de réflexion concernant les conditions d’acceptation de projets innovants et encore incertains. C’est à partir d’une étude monographique sur une coopérative linière située dans l’Oise et la mise en place d’une chaudière biomasse que la réflexion est menée. Il ressort ainsi des entretiens semi-directifs menés auprès des agriculteurs-adhérents des représentations plurielles du métier d’agriculteur et du risque. Les perceptions des parties prenantes jouent ainsi un rôle dans les conditions d’acceptation de projets innovants au niveau micro-social.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207