L’hydropolitique environnementale du Mékong, entre intérêts nationaux et activisme international
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les enjeux environnementaux des aménagements hydroélectriques sur le cours principal du Mékong sont devenus un objet de débat important entre les pays riverains et les experts et activistes environnementaux, pour la plupart occidentaux. Sur le plan national, la question de la gestion très peu concertée des projets de barrages sur le cours principal du Mékong provoque bien dans la société civile une mobilisation, mais celle-ci ne débouche pas sur un fléchissement des politiques d’aménagement hydroélectrique. La faute en revient, d’une part, aux gouvernements qui, même sous pression, contrôlent sans partage la gestion des ressources du bassin et, d’autre part, à l’incapacité de la Commission du Mékong (MRC), malgré une légitimité institutionnelle, à développer un cadre juridique contraignant. Cela contribue à éroder progressivement la pertinence de la Commission aux yeux de ses membres, des bailleurs de fonds internationaux et de la Chine, qui propose désormais son propre modèle de coopération Sud-Sud, l’initiative de Coopération Lancang-Mékong (CLM).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".