Deux ou trois choses que la Covid nous dit de la nature et du capitalisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte souligne que la façon dont les sciences sociales ont appréhendé la nature influence directement la conception des luttes pour l’environnement. Les auteurs se basent sur l’analyse d’une sélection d’articles de presse française liés au Covid et aux scenarii post-Covid. Si toutes les formations politiques et toutes les politiques publiques adoptent aujourd’hui un registre environment friendly, les positions théoriques restent, elles, assez intangibles et quatre positions idéal-typiques sont exposées. Les deux premières, pro- et anticapitalistes, évoluent symétriquement en faisant peu de cas de la nature, qui est vue essentiellement, par les uns, comme une ressource et un potentiel de croissance, et par les autres comme le signe des contradictions capitalistes. Les penseurs des « communs », de leur côté, insistent davantage sur les modalités de leur institutionnalisation qu’à la priorité qu’il faudrait accorder au vivant. Enfin, les réflexions sur la conservation et la régénération de la nature, apparaissent, en matière écologique, comme les plus ambitieuses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".