Le rôle stratégique du stage dans la formation en archivistique: réflexions d'un superviseur de stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archiviste a la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Universite de Montreal (DGDA), l'auteur presente sa vision des stages comme membre de la communaute archivistique quebecoise recevant des stagiaires dans le cadre de ses activites. Il decrit le milieu ou se realisent les stages et presente les activites realisees au cours des ans par les stagiaires. Il aborde par la suite les caracteristiques et la structure des stages a la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Universite de Montreal qui allient travail pratique et rencontre d'information avec les membres du personnel. L'auteur traite plus loin du role de l'archiviste-superviseur de stage, insistant sur la necessite d'une bonne planification. Il aborde egalement les qualites que doit avoir le superviseur de stage. Il poursuit en precisant ses attentes envers les stagiaires. Il traite des benefices que retirent les stagiaires, les superviseurs et les milieux d'accueil de l'experience du stage. Il conclut en insistant sur l'importance des stages pour communaute archivistique quebecoise et sur les paralleles que l'on peut etablir entre le mentorat et la supervision de stage.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".