Imaginaires de l’anthropocène et critique dans les écoles de management. Réactions des parties prenantes d’une grande école de management française aux diagnostics de l’anthropocène
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article nous analysons les modes de réception des parties prenantes d’une grande école de management française aux diagnostics de l’anthropocène, de l’effondrement écologique et de l’emballement climatique. Nous rendons compte plus précisément d’une innovation pédagogique qui fait provoquer une rencontre entre des savoirs académiques issus des sciences de la terre et du vivant et des étudiants en management. Nos résultats montrent comment les imaginaires écologiques et climatiques des étudiants vont être transformés suggérant une typologie des imaginaires de l’anthropocène. Nous suggérons que les expériences pédagogiques s’appuyant sur le constat de l’anthropocène ouvrent des perspectives critiques fécondes sur le management tout en produisant des situations d’apprentissage éminemment risquées.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".