Récits d’action publique et opérations de traductions : la restauration écologique du fleuve Rhône (France)1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jusqu’aux années 1980, le Rhône a été géré par une alliance entre hauts fonctionnaires d’État et acteurs industriels, sans considération particulière pour l’environnement. La gouvernance du fleuve tend ensuite à se fragmenter entre secteurs et entre territoires (acteurs de l’industrie hydroélectrique, du tourisme, de l’environnement, de la navigation, collectivités locales, etc.). De manière quelque peu surprenante au regard de la trajectoire de gouvernance du Rhône et de sa fragmentation actuelle, un large accord existe aujourd’hui autour de l’idée de restauration écologique. Analysant la restauration écologique comme un récit d’action publique (policy narrative), cet article cherche à comprendre comment cet accord a pu émerger et tente en même temps d’en qualifier la nature. Pour cela, il propose de mobiliser, à l’appui de l’analyse discursive, des éléments de la sociologie de la traduction de Michel Callon.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".