Legal Protection of Urban Biodiversity : A Comparative Study (France-Quebec)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La protection de la biodiversité en ville est un enjeu émergent qui confronte les perceptions de la nature et de la ville et appelle à renouveler les justifications qui fondent la protection de l’environnement. La comparaison entre la France et le Québec laisse apparaitre que, malgré une histoire urbaine et des enjeux démographiques et territoriaux différents, des tendances juridiques communes se dessinent. Le droit perpétue en effet cette opposition entre ville et nature, qu'un certain nombre de mécanismes permettent toutefois de dépasser. Par ailleurs, la protection juridique de la biodiversité urbaine est un enjeu de gouvernance qui met en évidence la place particulière des villes au sein des États. Elle interroge néanmoins la pertinence des instruments juridiques à leur disposition. L’étude des moyens mobilisables dans ce cadre dessine un corpus spécifique à un droit urbain de la biodiversité.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".