Quels territoires pertinentes pour écologiser les industries qui misent sur le renouvelable ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renewables' industries position themselves at the heart of ecological transition strategies to justify their territorial insertion. This has not, however, protected them from criticism on grounds of sustainability. Indeed, the government of these industries has come under attack, with opponents saying that industry actors have failed to address critical interdependencies necessary for sustainability to be achieved, including territorial ones. In this context, this article questions the functional argument of 'spatial fit', used by some analysts of ecological transition to explain the choice of regulatory scale. We do this by examining how actors use territorial resources to politicize the environmental government of these industries. Three case-studies are compared: salmon in Scotland, wind power in Quebec and wood energy in France. We show that the 'spatial fit' argument neither explains governing choices nor is sufficient for actors seeking to build legitimate regulation. / A l'heure de la « transition écologique », les industries qui misent sur des ressources renouvelables pour légitimer leur implantation dans des nouveaux territoires n'échappent pas à une critique sur leur durabilité. Les modalités mises en oeuvre pour gouverner ces industries sont souvent attaquées, non seulement au nom d'interdépendances mal prises en compte qui mettraient en péril la durabilité, mais aussi au nom de valeurs. L'article s'interroge sur le lien fonctionnel entre l'échelle de régulation et l'enjeu à gouverner et sur les autres sources de légitimité de la régulation, notamment institutionnelles et territoriales. Trois études de cas sont comparées : les saumons en Ecosse, l'éolien au Québec et le bois énergie en France. Nous montrons à partir de ces trois exemples que l'argument fonctionnaliste ne suffit pas pour expliquer le choix des acteurs et n'est pas déterminant dans la construction d'une régulation légitime.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".