Comment la crise énergétique reconfigure les débats sur la sobriété. Une analyse des problématisations dans la presse nationale française
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie les débats dans la presse nationale française autour de la notion de sobriété énergétique au cours des 15 dernières années. À partir d’une analyse mobilisant l’outil CorText, il suit la manière dont la notion de sobriété a fait l’objet de problématisations successives durant la période 2009-2021, et il examine les transformations qui se sont opérées avec la crise énergétique de 2022. Il met ainsi en évidence les formes de politisation qui se déploient autour de l’envolée des prix des énergies et des risques de ruptures de l’approvisionnement énergétique, ainsi que des formes de gouvernement de la sobriété déployées en 2022. Il questionne enfin les figures de la sobriété comme objet de discussion politique et morale ou comme composante des trajectoires des innovations pour l’énergie et le climat telles qu’elles apparaissent dans la presse.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".