Quelle prise en compte du concept de biodiversité dans les programmes français de sciences et technologie et de sciences de la vie et de la Terre ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La biodiversité fait l’objet de nombreux travaux scientifiques, mais est un concept complexe dont il n’est pas possible de donner une définition simple. Cet article réalise une analyse lexicométrique de ce concept au sein des programmes de sciences et technologie (cycle 3, 9 à 11 ans) et de sciences de la vie et de la Terre (SVT) (pour le cycle 4, 12 à 14 ans et le lycée, 15 à 17 ans) français. Les résultats obtenus montrent trois grands ensembles de connaissances. Un ensemble de connaissances qui s’articule autour d’une vision descriptive et évolutive de la biodiversité, un autre qui considère l’agriculture comme une pratique en concurrence avec la diversité naturelle et un troisième qui aborde la protection de la biodiversité vue comme une ressource exploitable par l’homme. Cette analyse met en évidence que les programmes tendent à séparer les aspects scientifiques et environnementaux du concept de biodiversité.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".