Conceptions plurielles du risque dans le contexte d’une controverse actuelle en santé environnementale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans les écrits académiques sur le risque, on distingue généralement, au point de les opposer, les manières dont les citoyens et les scientifiques se réfèrent à différentes conceptions de la notion de risque. Dans cet article, nous suggérons que les conceptions véhiculées ne sont pas toujours aussi exclusives que ce qui est abondamment prétendu. Nous exemplifions cette proposition en analysant les conceptions véhiculées par deux groupes d’acteurs (Direction régionale de santé publique de l’Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale et un regroupement citoyen) engagés dans la gestion d’une controverse publique actuelle autour de la pollution métallique dans les quartiers centraux de la Ville de Québec. En fin d’article, nous abordons les apports de la richesse des discours sur le risque et de leurs impacts sur la vivacité de la controverse.
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 | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".