Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé À première vue, les débats internationaux sur la chasse aux baleines sont simples. Il existe un large soutien pour l’idée que la chasse devrait être interdite, de même qu’une forte opposition émanant de certains pays. Pourtant, les enjeux sont en réalité beaucoup plus complexes et témoignent notamment d’un décalage croissant entre le cadre juridique existant et les problèmes qu’il lui revient désormais de traiter. Ce décalage reflète à son tour la complexité croissante des débats sur l’environnement, et tout particulièrement les tensions entre une conception traditionnelle de la conservation et des approches hostiles à l’anthropocentrisme. Cet article souligne les difficultés que rencontre le droit face aux questions humaines de diversité culturelle et à la nature des dynamiques écologiques, qui se déploient sur des échelles multiples. La conclusion de l’article est que, alors même que le débat s’est ouvert, on a pu perdre de vue les questions urgentes de conservation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".