MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096727454 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.9491

Catastrophes dites naturelles, risques et développement durable : Utilisations géographiques de la courbe de Farmer

2010· article· fr· W2096727454 on OpenAlex
Patrick Pigeon

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article vise à montrer comment la courbe de Farmer permet de représenter à la fois les risques, les catastrophes dites naturelles et le développement durable. Elle peut aider à comprendre et à formaliser les relations qui peuvent exister entre ces notions, en s’appuyant sur les travaux de terrain que mènent les géographes. En effet, l’augmentation des catastrophes que présentent les bases de données comme EM-Dat n’est pas incompatible avec la notion de développement durable. Les politiques visant à augmenter la résilience des sociétés locales, et à réduire le niveau des dommages en cas de survenue d’un futur événement, apparaissent très compatibles avec les principes fondamentaux du développement durable. Ce qui n’empêche pas qu’elles produisent aussi de nombreux effets non désirés qui ne peuvent être totalement anticipés. Les géographes les identifient lors de leurs travaux de terrain. Ceci est très cohérent avec le fait que la courbe de Farmer soit considérée comme un moyen de représenter la complexité.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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