MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793453224 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.18742

Bonne nature, mauvais artifice ? L’Église catholique et l’écologie : retour sur Laudato Si’

2017· article· fr· W2793453224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean-Michel Le Bot

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 2015, avec l’encyclique Laudato Si’, le pape François s’engageait sur la question de l’écologie et prenait le contre-pied de la thèse selon laquelle la crise écologique devait beaucoup à l’anthropocentrisme chrétien. Notre article replace cette encyclique dans la longue durée de la doctrine catholique. Il observe que la méfiance envers la technique et la préférence accordée au naturel sont devenues très nettes au cours du 20e siècle dans les prises de position de l’Église au sujet de la contraception. Or ces dernières innovaient par rapport à la doctrine héritée de la tradition et se rapprochaient déjà de certaines positions écologistes exprimées par exemple par les pionniers de l’agriculture biologique. Il ne restait donc plus qu’à élargir le propos pour parvenir à la promotion d’une « écologie intégrale ».

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207