Quand l’édifice vacille : stupeur et tremblements dans la gestion du risque après le séisme du Teil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le séisme du Teil du 11 novembre 2019 a déjoué tous les pronostics. Dans cet article, nous suivons les scientifiques et experts du risque sismique en France dans leurs efforts (1) de faire sens d’un évènement déroutant et (2) d’en tirer les leçons pour la protection des constructions conventionnelles et des installations à risque spécial (chimique et nucléaire). Cette étude montre alors la place stratégique occupée par une communauté d’experts située à l’interface entre le bâti (courant et industriel) et la menace sismique. Par l’action de boucles d’auto-référencements, ces experts éteignent les controverses et confinent le calcul du risque admissible dans une bureaucratie technique qui se saisit de la double charge d’amélioration de la connaissance sismique et de la mitigation des risques.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".