Quand les représentations s’invitent dans la conservation de la biodiversité, la réserve naturelle marine de La Réunion face à la crise Requin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La crise Requin à la Réunion a généré dans les médias et sur internet des représentations pour lesquelles la réserve marine constitue le foyer principal de la crise. Des entretiens auprès de 29 usagers économiques, culturels ou traditionnels du milieu récifal, complétés par des enquêtes par questionnaire auprès de 495 personnes assimilées au grand public et à l’opinion publique montrent que les représentations de la crise Requin et de la réserve naturelle marine de La Réunion sont modulées par la nature et l’intensité des relations d’usage avec le milieu récifal. Dans ce contexte, aucune de ces deux populations n’adhère à l’hypothèse d’une responsabilité de la réserve marine dans la recrudescence des attaques de requins. The shark crisis in Reunion has generated representations in the media and internet where the marine reserve is guilty to be the main cause of the shark crisis. Interviews with 29 people, most of whom were highly dependent on the reef environment, and questionnaire surveys of 495 people show that public opinion in Réunion and economic users of the reef environment do not agree whith this point of view. These two populations have their own representations of the shark crisis and the responsibilities of the marine reserve. These representations are driven by the nature and intensity of their use relations with the reef environment. Both populations think that the marine reserve has low responsability in the increase of shark attacks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".