Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ceux qui critiquent le mouvement écologiste reprochent parfois à ses adeptes de proposer des politiques publiques qui sont imprécises et, même, contradictoires. Certains écologistes, s’inspirant de Edgar Morin, ont répondu que les contradictions apparentes de leurs propositions ne sont que « les signes avant-coureurs de la complexité ». Selon les écologistes, leurs propositions tiendraient donc davantage du paradoxe que de la contradiction. Plusieurs propositions écologistes sont examinées pour déterminer, si, prima facie, elles tiennent du paradoxe ou de la contradiction et, dans cette optique, quelques thèmes de politiques publiques sont abordés : la centralisation/décentralisation, l’utilisation de la science et de la rationalité, la technocratie, ainsi que le syndrome NIMBY (not in my back yard). Même s’il faut concéder aux écologistes que dans un des cas sommairement rapporté, celui du syndrome NIMBY, Ia contradiction apparente pourrait bien être un authentique paradoxe, il n’en demeure pas moins qu’une bonne partie des propositions écologistes comportent des éléments qui sont ambigus et contradictoires.
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 | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".