Le développement durable en question : analyses économiques autour d’un improbable compromis entre acceptions optimiste et pessimiste du rapport de l’Homme à la Nature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le concept de développement durable s’est considérablement popularisé depuis la parution du rapport Brundtland il y a presque 25 ans. S’il faut sans doute l’opérationnaliser pour le faire entrer dans le quotidien des agents, il reste au fond un concept mou aux origines aussi lointaines que protéiformes. L’objet de cet article est de faire état de la longue série de débats sur le rapport de l’homme à la nature en économie : de Malthus aux conceptions faibles et fortes du développement durable. On verra que si ces débats illustrent l’opposition maintes fois renouvelée entre partis de l’optimisme et du pessimisme, tous ont surtout régulièrement fait valoir des arguments sensés ou intelligibles, au point de contribuer ensemble à faire progresser l’analyse économique du développement durable autour de ce que l’on peut désormais concevoir comme deux traditions s’enrichissantin finel’une de l’autre : l’économie de l’environnement et des ressources naturelles d’un côté, et la plus récente écologie économique de l’autre.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".