Des bienfaits de la nature aux services écosystémiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article replace le concept montant de « service écosystémique » (SE) dans l’histoire occidentale, en mettant en évidence les permanences, oppositions et ruptures qui ont accompagné la genèse de ce concept ou de ses équivalents anciens. Une nature bienveillante, l’existence de « bienfaits », « services » et « utilités » furent des idées régulièrement mises en avant, mais pour des raisons différentes d’aujourd’hui, depuis les philosophes de l’Antiquité, les naturalistes de l’Ancien Régime, les poètes romantiques, les ingénieurs à la recherche de crédits ou de lois incitatives pour le reboisement, et désormais, l’écologie scientifique. L’étude s’appuie sur le cas de la forêt, le plus évoqué en parlant de SE. La discussion aborde certaines propriétés de ce concept, que son histoire peut expliquer, notamment ses ambigüités, ses mutations et sa dissymétrie, mais aussi les contradictions qui naissent de son usage dans des dispositifs locaux.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".