MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990841865 · doi:10.3917/re1.085.0062

EXTRAPLAC : les enjeux, pour la France, de son plateau continental

2017· article· fr· W2990841865 on OpenAlexaff
W. R. Roest

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales des Mines - Responsabilité et environnement · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, adoptée en 1982 et ratifiée par la France en 1996, attribue aux États côtiers des droits souverains s’étendant en mer jusqu’à 200 milles nautiques (M) des côtes (environ 370 km), c’est la Zone économique exclusive. L’article 76 de la Convention stipule que si le prolongement naturel du territoire terrestre d’un État s’étend au-delà de cette limite, ledit État peut revendiquer une extension de son plateau continental jusqu’à 350 M, voire au-delà dans certaines conditions. Mais encore faut-il être en mesure de prouver que le plateau continental s’étend aussi loin. Pour cela, la France a mis en place, en 2002, le programme national EXTRAPLAC (EXTension RAisonnée du PLAteau Continental), qui est chargé de constituer les dossiers scientifiques et techniques démontrant cette extension au large des territoires de la métropole et des collectivités de l’Outre-mer, et de les soutenir voire de les défendre devant la Commission des limites du plateau continental, auprès de l’ONU (à New York). À travers ce programme, la France répond aux importants enjeux de l’extension de son plateau continental, dont, entre autres, l’accès aux ressources naturelles, la protection de l’environnement, la recherche scientifique et la stratégie géopolitique. Bien que s’inscrivant dans un contexte juridique et diplomatique, la démarche du programme EXTRAPLAC reste avant tout scientifique.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales des Mines - Responsabilité et environnementSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207