MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W103177335 · doi:10.7202/1032997ar

Indexation manuelle et indexation assistée par ordinateur : comparaison de la performance de deux index d’une monographie

2015· article· fr· W103177335 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine Lavallée

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyIndexation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La présente expérimentation teste la performance, en tant que système de repérage de l’information, de deux index d’une monographie, l’un manuel, l’autre semi-automatique selon la méthode de Bennion. L’expérimentation consiste à repérer la localisation d’extraits du texte à l’aide des index. L’application des formules développées par Bennion démontre que les deux index sont à peu près égaux. Les conclusions ne peuvent être valables pour tous les index semi-automatiques mais il appert que dans le cas présent il s’agit d’une alliance réussie entre l’ordinateur et l’humain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.021
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207