Construire ensemble le problème, passage obligé pour la conception de solutions énergétiques acceptables ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social acceptability is considered as a prerequired condition in order to implement energetic projects. This notion is thus complex: the acceptability is not "given" but has to be "constructed", its depends on numerous factors and evolves constantly. We would like to show that its construction needs a time dedicated to the working out of the problem. Thus, some activities of sensitisation should be organised not only for the general public, but also for the decision-makers and the developers: all of them sould share a good awareness of the motivations and of the constraints of each others, so as to share a common understanding of the situation to change. In this perspective, participation can take different complementary forms, and not just the one of "public participation" which is generally adopted. / L'acceptabilité sociale est considérée comme une condition préalable à la réalisation de projets énergétiques. Cette notion est toutefois complexe: l'acceptabilité n'est pas un "donné" mais un "construit", elle se fonde sur plusieurs facteurs et est évolutive. Nous voudrions montrer que sa construction exige un temps consacré à une étape souvent négligée, celle de la formulation du problème. Ainsi, la sensibilisation n'est pas seulement destinée au grand public, mais aux décideurs et promoteurs: tous devraient avoir une bonne connaissance des préoccupations des uns et des autres comme de leurs contraintes pour, en principe, partager une compréhension de la situation à changer. A cette fin, la participation peut prendre plusieurs formes complémentaires, et pas uniquement celle "publique" généralement adoptée.
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 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".