Apport d’une théorie relationnelle en éthique de l’environnement : la voix différente de la mutualité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour but d’approcher philosophiquement la notion de relation afin d’en fixer la valeur heuristique et le statut théorique en prenant comme pierre de touche l’éthique environnementale anglosaxonne. Il propose de voir l’analyse du problème de la destruction de la nature de Val Plumwood et sa proposition éthique, dans Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, comme une théorie relationnelle fondée sur le concept de mutualité (mutuality) des fins propres aux humains comme aux entités non-humaines. Cette théorie semble alors féconde vis-à-vis des autres formes d’éthiques environnementales, développées à la fin du siècle dernier, dans la mesure où en enrichissant les concepts « d’anthropocentrisme » et de « valeur intrinsèque », elle fait honneur à la pluralité des formes de vie morale possibles avec les entités non-humaines. En ce sens, elle vient ouvrir une voix différente.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".