L’esthétique environnementale comme cadre de pensée pour appréhender la « sensibilité paysagère » : perspectives historiques et débats contemporains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qu’est-ce que la valeur esthétique d’un paysage et qu’est-ce que ce qui est en jeu lorsque nous lui attribuons une telle valeur ? L’esthétique environnementale, puisant ses fondements dans l’esthétique philosophique et dans l’environnementalisme anglo-saxon, s’est précisément penchée sur ces questions. Si ce courant se nomme esthétique environnementale plutôt qu’esthétique du paysage, ce n’est pas en faveur d’une approche s’occupant de « ce qui environne » ou de se concentrer sur la dimension écologique du paysage, mais plutôt pour situer leur opposition à l’approche dite pittoresque du XVIIIe siècle. Ainsi, si l’argument esthétique comme motif d’engagement à la protection de l’environnement s’est historiquement montré prépondérant (Hargrove, 1979), l’esthétique environnementale éclaire les ressorts et les modalités de justification de celui-ci.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".