Bibliographic record
Abstract
La controverse publique s’est imposée comme une forme récurrente de la dynamique démocratique. La montée des préoccupations environnementales a conforté cette pratique discursive, qui mobilise différents types de savoirs. Appréhendée par plusieurs disciplines académiques, la controverse environnementale reste encore peu abordée en éducation des adultes relative à l’environnement (EAE). Par ailleurs, le consensus reste la visée ultime sans que les potentialités du conflit ne soient toujours pleinement exploitées dans une perspective critique, pourtant dominante en éducation des adultes. À partir d’une exploration de la littérature récente en EAE, cet article esquisse une généalogie de la controverse envisagée selon deux modalités discursives de construction du savoir repérables que j’appellerai figure de la discorde et figure de la concorde, afin de rendre compte des usages du consensus et du conflit et leurs apports potentiels pour la construction d’une grille d’analyse des controverses environnementales.
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 | 0.049 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".