Le droit de l’eau face aux déluges bibliques et aux sécheresses millénaires : la gestion des conflits d’usages causés par la variabilité hydrologique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La variabilité hydrologique impose les contraintes les plus importantes relativement à la gestion des ressources hydriques. Elle suppose que le volume d’eau disponible en un lieu donné varie constamment, souvent de façon imprévisible, ce qui oblige à composer avec des incertitudes importantes. Le réchauffement planétaire augmente les variations climatiques, de même que les évènements météorologiques extrêmes, ce qui multiplie les incertitudes liées aux projections hydrologiques. Les caractéristiques de la variabilité hydrologique induisent une problématique particulièrement aiguë pour le droit qui constitue un ensemble de règles générales capables de guider et d’encadrer de façon prévisible, stable et sécuritaire la conduite des personnes. Cet article étudie la façon dont le droit gère les conflits d’usages de l’eau qui se manifestent dans un contexte de fluctuations des régimes hydriques. L’exercice permet de mettre en évidence certaines contraintes inhérentes que le droit impose à la gestion des ressources hydriques et à l’adaptation aux changements climatiques.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".