Conflits et stratégies d’acceptabilité sociale autour des énergies marines renouvelables sur le littoral français
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’océan mondial possède un important potentiel en termes de ressources énergétiques renouvelables, et les territoires littoraux français sont particulièrement propices au développement des parcs éoliens offshore et des sites d’exploitation de l’énergie hydrolienne. Pourtant, la multiplicité d’usages aux pratiques parfois contradictoires génère de nombreux conflits en zone côtière : aux activités « traditionnelles » (tourisme, pêche professionnelle, etc.) se superposent l’intensification de certaines pratiques (comme l’extraction de granulats marins) ou le développement de nouvelles activités (énergies marines renouvelables, aquaculture offshore, etc.). Cet article insiste sur le lien entre ces conflits d’usages et les stratégies d’acceptabilité développées par les porteurs de projets en ce qui concerne les énergies marines renouvelables. L’acceptabilité sociale de ces énergies engendre notamment des questions concernant les instances de concertation ou encore la pratique de compensations pour les acteurs qui perçoivent une modification de leurs intérêts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".