Réchauffement climatique : les perspectives des rapports entre science, politique et société
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le 22 avril 2016, 175 pays et l’Union européenne ont signé au siège des Nations Unies, à New York, l’Accord de Paris sur le climat. La vingtaine de pays absents à ce rendez-vous ont jusqu’au 21 avril 2017 pour y apposer leur signature. Il s’agit du premier accord universel sur le climat. Malgré le fossé entre les contributions annoncées par ces pays et l’objectif affiché d’une limitation de l’élévation de la température moyenne de la Planète bien en-dessous de 2˚C, voire en-dessous de 1,5˚C par rapport au niveau préindustriel, ce caractère universel justifie pleinement que la COP 21 soit considérée comme un succès. Cette réussite a été possible grâce à l’engagement et aux efforts conjugués d’une communauté scientifique quasi unanime dans son diagnostic, de décideurs politiques qui ont compris l’importance des enjeux et de nombreuses composantes de ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler la société civile. Nous analysons dans cet article la façon dont cette synergie s’est progressivement mise en place.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".