La responsabilité environnementale des prêteurs : difficultés juridiques et ensemble des possibles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indéniablement, les bailleurs de fonds exercent une responsabilité environnementale par les prêts qu’ils accordent aux activités risquées. Cependant, en 1996, les amendements apportés à la loi CERCLA ont exempté les prêteurs d’une grande part de leur responsabilité. Cet article montre que cette situation tend à devenir pérenne ce qui pose la question de la normativité de la littérature économique contemporaine consacrée à la responsabilisation des prêteurs. Pour mettre fin au hiatus entre la « pratique » qui exonère les financeurs de responsabilité et la théorie qui la prend pour acquise, il est proposé d’introduire une responsabilité pour faute pour les prêteurs qui ne contrôleraient pas le respect des règles environnementales des opérateurs. Les bailleurs de fond joueraient alors le rôle de principal en permettant de déterminer le montant d’effort de sécurité le plus élevé possible.
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 | 0.021 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".