La démarche de développement durable : un processus intégrateur des enjeux sociaux et environnementaux dans les organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le développement durable est un concept faisant l’objet d’une large adhésion, autant auprès des organisations économiques, sociocommunautaires, environnementales que politiques. Sa définition, proposée en 1987 dans le rapport Brundtland, fait généralement consensus, mais l’interprétation de sa définition tend à varier selon les contextes d’application. De même, les outils utilisés pour sa mise en oeuvre varient selon le contexte et les besoins. Au Québec et ailleurs dans le monde, des organisations de toute taille ont entamé des démarches de développement durable. Divers outils, instruments et processus de mise en oeuvre sont utilisés pour guider la démarche de ces organisations. Le présent article propose une typologie de ces instruments. Nous présentons également les avantages et limites d’une démarche intégrée de développement durable.
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".