De la « fronde anti-Linky » à la justification écologique du smart metering : retour sur la genèse d’un projet controversé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article propose une analyse de la controverse française sur le compteur communicant Linky en interrogeant la construction de sa justification écologique. Il défend l’hypothèse que cette controverse s’enracine de manière concomitante dans la critique du nouvel objet technique et dans celle de la genèse du projet politico-industriel qui a présidé à son déploiement national. Il combine analyse de la presse, étude documentaire et enquête de terrain pour restituer, en deux parties, une description de la controverse en France à partir de son traitement médiatique et une analyse de la genèse institutionnelle du projet Linky. La première partie montre une controverse publique et plurithématique en permanente recomposition, dans laquelle le dispositif technique s’expose à des épreuves successives, dont celle de la dénonciation d’une tentative de verdissement d’un projet de modernisation industrielle. La deuxième partie porte un regard réflexif sur le projet Linky et montre comment les oppositions qui le concernent se nourrissent des limites de son cadrage et de son accompagnement par les institutions politiques et administratives.
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 | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".