MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976723306 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.4509

Éthique et certifications de commerce équitable: entre contrôle et capacitation

2019· article· fr· W2976723306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Allison Marchildon

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesCertificationPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

J’explorerai dans ce texte deux formes de rapports de pouvoir observées au sein des certifications de commerce équitable : une première à tendance contrôlante, une seconde à tendance capacitante. J’illustrerai plus concrètement les interactions entre ces deux tendances à l’aide d’exemples issus d’une recherche terrain menée auprès d’acteurs du commerce équitable, notamment des producteurs du Guatemala. Cela m’amènera en conclusion à soulever les implications de cette distinction entre pouvoirs contrôlants et pouvoirs capacitants pour penser les certifications à portée éthique, et plus particulièrement le potentiel que présente à cet égard la notion de pouvoirs capacitants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impactFrench-language works237,207