MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523930545 · doi:10.25071/1708-6701.40207

La mise à jour d’avril 2015 de RDA et son impact sur les instructions relatives à la musique : une étude à l’intention des catalogueurs de musique

2015· article· fr· W1523930545 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniel Paradis, Joseph Hafner

Bibliographic record

VenueCAML Review / Revue de l ACBM · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La version de RDA Toolkit mise en ligne en avril 2015 comprend des mises à jour majeures du contenu de la version anglaise de RDA, Ressources : description et accès. Plusieurs des révisions incluses dans cette mise à jour modifient des instructions que les catalogueurs de musique doivent appliquer de façon régulière. Cet article examine les plus importantes de ces révisions dans le but d’aider les catalogueurs de musique à mieux comprendre les divers changements qui peuvent affecter le catalogage de la musique. Il examine en particulier l’impact des révisions en ce qui concerne la mention de responsabilité, l’importance matérielle de la musique notée, la durée, les titres privilégiés des œuvres musicales, les abréviations dans les titres de parties d’œuvres musicales ainsi que les points d’accès représentant des expressions musicales. L’article illustre certains des changements en incluant des exemples qui ont été révisés ou ajoutés. Il comprend également un tableau qui compare la structure des instructions de 6.14.2 avant et après la mise à jour d’avril 2015, en raison des nombreux changements dans ce domaine. Bien que cet article s’adresse principalement aux catalogueurs de musique, il peut aussi intéresser les bibliothécaires de musique désireux d’en apprendre davantage sur le catalogage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.022

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.242 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCAML Review / Revue de l ACBMSame topicLibrary Science and Information SystemsFrench-language works237,207