Quand les savoirs font ressource : constructions sociales et intégrations territoriales.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir du cas du lithium sud-américain, nous proposons une analyse du rôle des savoirs dans la construction d’une ressource et dans les dynamiques spatiales associées. Nous partons du constat que la multiplication des projets d’exploitation en Argentine, en Bolivie et au Chili s’accompagne d’une production croissante de savoirs universitaires sur le lithium de ces pays, sans toutefois que ces derniers soient mis à profit par les multinationales minières. En effet, celles-ci développent leurs propres savoirs à l’étranger, intégrant ainsi les gisements dans des réseaux mondiaux de mise en valeur de la ressource. L’hypothèse ici défendue est qu’à défaut de participer directement à l’exploitation du lithium, les savoirs produits dans le « triangle du lithium » jouent un rôle social et politique participant à l’intégration du gisement à d’autres échelles : régionale, nationale, locale.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".