L’agenda gouvernemental de croissance saisi par l’expertise environnementale des Organisations de la société civile (OSC) de défense des forêts au Cameroun
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les études sur l’environnement en lien aux enjeux du développement ont entrainé l’institutionnalisation d’une tendance universitaire, dite political ecology. Celle-ci émerge en opposition à la tendance dite de l’écologie humaine culturelle. Les analyses portées par le nouveau courant s’articulent autour des logiques de pouvoir en matière de gestion mondiale de l’environnement et de domination d’un petit nombre de discours. Le niveau international est ainsi au centre de ce courant au détriment des controverses nationales en matière environnementale. Il est pourtant intéressant de décentrer le regard vers ce niveau d’action pour voir comment l’expertise environnementale constitue un espace d’influence réciproque, entre pouvoirs publics et Organisations de la société civile (OSC), lié aux de croissance. En partant de l’analyse discursive des politiques publiques, tel est là l’objectif poursuivi par cette recherche.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".