MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322750624 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.35944

Les terres australes françaises, terrain d’expérimentation de la solidarité écologique

2022· article· fr· W4322750624 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Tixier, Christophe Guinet, Chloé Faure, Anatole Danto, Camille Mazé

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La coexistence humains – non humains (ici espèces animales), cristallisée autour de compromis entre viabilité des activités socio-économiques, sécurité alimentaire des populations humaines et conservation de la faune, est devenue un défi sociétal et environnemental majeur. Ce défi constitue un cadre expérimental privilégié pour mettre le principe de solidarité écologique à l’épreuve du terrain. En milieu marin, le conflit global entre pêcheries et mégafaune s’est récemment intensifié et sa résolution est freinée par la complexité des enjeux socio-écosystémiques locaux et le manque d’expertise et de gestion trans-sectorielle. Dans cette étude, nous utilisons le cas de la pêcherie palangrière opérant autour des terres australes françaises Crozet et Kerguelen pour examiner comment les acteurs se sont mobilisés et réorganisés au cours des 30 dernières années en réponse à deux forts conflits avec la mégafaune : les captures accidentelles d’oiseaux marins et la déprédation par les cétacés (individus se nourrissant sur la capture de pêche). À partir de cette analyse, nous proposons des modèles basés sur le concept de socio-écosystème pouvant être appliqués à d'autres situations de conflits humains – non-humains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigO→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→