La cyclologistique est-elle toujours alternative ? Triporteurs et remorques dans le grand Lyon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper dwells on the recent transformations experienced by cycle logistics operators, who transport goods that are increasingly voluminous and invest in cargo bicycles that have higher and higher carrying capacity, such as cargo tricycles or big bicycle trailers. The discourse and practices of four cycle logistics operators in the urban area of Lyon in France are analysed in order to highlight the arguments used to present their activity as “alternative”. This study shows that the development of these new vehicles contributes to the understanding of cycle logistics as alternative by making it appear realistic and environmentally-friendly. However, it challenges specific professional sub-cultures historically associated with bicycle messengering. Cet article se penche sur les recompositions récentes traversées par les opérateurs de cyclologistique, qui prennent en charge des marchandises de plus en plus volumineuses et transforment leurs flottes de véhicules en investissant dans des vélos-cargos à grande capacité d’emport, tels que des vélos-triporteurs ou attelages avec remorque. À partir de l’étude des discours et des pratiques de quatre opérateurs de cyclologistique dans la métropole de Lyon, les arguments mobilisés pour présenter leur activité comme « alternative » sont analysés. Cette étude montre que le développement de ces nouveaux véhicules renforce l’aspect alternatif de la cyclologistique en lui donnant de la crédibilité et en confirmant sa pertinence écologique, mais remet également en question certaines sous-cultures professionnelles, historiquement associées aux coursiers à vélo.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".