Visiteurs et personnels de zoos urbains : une approche sociogéographique des liens entre conception de la nature et actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article émane d’un travail pluridisciplinaire autour des rapports qu’entretiennent l’humain et ses institutions avec le monde animal : à partir de l’exemple de trois zoos urbains, géographie et sociologie conversent sur la façon dont les actions mises en place dans le cadre de ces espaces influencent la conception de la nature des acteurs, visiteurs mais aussi professionnels exerçant dans ces zoos. Le traitement et l’analyse d’une vingtaine d’entretiens semi-directifs et d’observations in situ mettent en exergue l’ambivalence de l’impact des actions des zoos sur le public. Tout en maintenant une fonction de distraction et de loisir, le zoo défend sa place d’acteur engagé dans la conservation des espèces animales, toutefois, la permanence de son existence nuance son efficacité à protéger durablement la nature des effets pervers des activités anthropiques.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".