Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le développement durable a pour objectif de concilier des exigences diverses, sinon antagoniques : l’économique, le social, l’environnemental. On peut donc se demander s’il répond vraiment aux intuitions qui sont au point de départ de la conscience écologique. Nous en dégageons trois, dans trois domaines : l’exigence de protection de la nature, la conviction que la solution à la crise environnementale ne peut pas être purement technique, et l’insistance sur la dimension sociale, et pas seulement naturelle, de la crise environnementale. Chacune de ces exigences donne lieu à des débats conflictuels : préservation contre conservation, souci éthique contre optimisme technologique, exigence sociale et politique contre traitement scientiste des questions environnementales. De l’examen de ces litiges, il ressort que l’avenir du développement durable passe par une reformulation du concept de nature.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| 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".