Quand la trajectoire d’objets techniques liés à la gestion des eaux agricoles révèle des valeurs attachées à la nature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’une enquête qualitative, dans un contexte d’agriculture intensive en Brie humide drainée, l’article retrace la manière dont est pensée la mise en discussion de deux objets techniques (le système de drainage et les zones tampons humides artificielles). Il examine comment ces objets sont « apportés » sur ces territoires par les pouvoirs publics et les scientifiques et ce qu’ils révèlent des représentations et valeurs attachées à la fois à la technique et à la nature. Le travail met en évidence que s’il y a certes émergence de nouveaux paradigmes d’action publique fondés sur l’expression de nouvelles attentes sociales (notamment au travers d’un impératif de participation) et environnementales, l’adoption de ces deux objets dessine de manière similaire une forme de confiance en la technique et un souci de maîtrise de la nature.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".