MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142860851 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.11988

Vulnérabilité, risques et environnement : l’itinéraire chaotique d’un paradigme sociologique contemporain

2012· article· fr· W2142860851 on OpenAlex

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 · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vulnérabilité est une notion polysémique, multiscalaire, multidimensionnelle (Nathan, 2009 ; Janin, 2006, 2008 ; Léone, 2007 ; Bogardi, 2004 ; Bohle, 2002 ; Fabiani, Theys, 1987) dont l’utilisation va bien au-delà de la simple identification des critères sociaux traditionnels comme l’âge, le genre, la classe sociale ou le niveau des revenus (Birkmann, 2006). En France, elle a du mal à s’imposer comme un véritable concept sociologique, tandis qu’ailleurs les chercheurs, notamment américains ou latino-américains, travaillent sur cette problématique depuis une trentaine d’années. Cet article explicite l’itinéraire du paradigme de la vulnérabilité sociale dans l’étude des risques environnementaux à partir d’une revue de ses définitions et usages par les sciences sociales, et du rappel de quelques grandes questions scientifiques pour lesquelles la notion a été mobilisée en particulier par les sociologues. Il interroge les enjeux et les défis de ce nouveau paradigme pour la sociologie contemporaine.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.235 · 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