MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515464615 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.17461

Pourquoi et comment faut-il sauver la sécurité hydrique ?

2016· article· fr· W2515464615 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yvan Renou

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobilisant une approche d’écologie politique, la démarche exposée dans cet article invite à substituer à la notion conventionnelle de sécurité hydrique celle de sécurité hydro-sociale afin de répondre aux principaux enjeux hydriques contemporains, au premier rang desquels figure l’adaptation au changement climatique. Il s’agit alors non plus de procéder à une sociétalisation marchandisée des risques hydriques mais bien d’oeuvrer à une démocratisation des cycles hydro-sociaux afin de consolider le processus de co-construction territorialisée de trajectoires de développement soutenables. Dans une telle perspective, la mise en politique de la gestion des incertitudes scientifiques et sociétales inhérentes aux services écosystémiques représente un pré-requis méthodologique incontournable devant permettre d’aboutir, via un processus de négociation fondé sur l’évaluation monétaire démocratique, à l’élaboration de compromis institutionnalisés « sécurisants ».

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207