Appréciation esthétique des paysages et évaluation sociale des choix de développement : l'exemple de l'éolien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our speech relates to the issue of aesthetics in public policy. It deals with the public policies concerning the development of wind power.The observation of these policies are quite relevant because, when it comes to give them an actual shape, local landscape and global environment are frequently put back to back in the debates raising around wind energy projects. In the social contestations, landscape seems used as a first argument to stimulate a large debate in the public sphere. This debate questions planning choices as well as development patterns underneath. It also asks about economic and politic dynamics which create such wind energy landscapes. In this perspective, we will consider social dynamics as being bearer of a process of negotiation and creation, a process that foster to achieve the necessary transposition of normative principals, promote in national energy policy and in their linked sustainable development discourses, into physical projects which could be better integrated into the territorial dynamics concerned. The aesthetic appreciation (or depreciation) of landscape could then be considered as a form of social assessment made on planning and development choices. / Notre communication porte sur la prise en compte du jugement esthétique dans les politiques publiques. Elle s'attache plus exactement aux politiques publiques mobilisées dans le cadre du développement de l'énergie éolienne. L'examen de ces politiques est particulièrement pertinent puisque, lorsqu'il s'agit de leur donner forme, paysage local et environnement global semblent mis dos à dos dans les débats entourant les projets de parcs éoliens. Dans les contestations sociales, l'argument du paysage semble être utilisé comme un premier argument pour faire émerger un débat plus large sur la place publique. Ce débat, qui questionne les choix d'aménagement ainsi que les modèles de développement sous-jacents, renvoie, plus largement, aux dynamiques économiques et politiques qui créent les nouveaux paysages associés à l'énergie éolienne. Dans cette perspective, nous proposons de considérer les dynamiques sociales comme étant porteuses d'un processus de négociation et de création qui vise à réaliser la nécessaire transposition de principes normatifs, promus dans les politiques nationales d'énergie et dans les discours sur le développement durable qui les accompagnent, dans des projets d'aménagement concrets qui, eux, s'intègrent dans les dynamiques territoriales concernées. L'appréciation (ou la dépréciation) esthétique des paysages est alors considérée comme une forme d'évaluation sociale des choix de développement et d'aménagement des territoires.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".