Le développement durable : enfant prodigue ou rejeton matriphage de la protection de la nature ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien qu’une forte incertitude pèse sur l’évaluation chiffrée de l’érosion de la biodiversité, et une incertitude plus grande encore sur les projections du déclin à venir, il n’y a pas de controverse sur le fait que le rythme d’extinction actuel en est un de crise. Le fait que ce déclin soit avant tout d’origine anthropique est également consensuel au sein de la communauté scientifique. Ce texte prend donc pour point de départ le constat d’une véritable crise de la biodiversité. Cette crise doit nous inciter à adopter un principe de protection de la biodiversité, principe normatif qui viserait à encadrer la relation de l’homme au monde vivant, principalement sous l’angle de sa diversité. Je vais montrer dans ce texte que le principe du développement durable ne suffit pas à définir adéquatement un principe de protection de la biodiversité.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".